Search

The Workshop on Unavoidable Survey Effort Reduction 2 (WKUSER2) focused on best-available approaches that can minimize information loss and ensure continuity in survey time series when unavoidable changes to survey effort occur. WKUSER2 recognised that reductions, reallocations, or increases in survey effort present similar set of problems, and therefore concentrated on all aspects of survey effort changes. The workshop reviewed available research, current practices, and recommended future directions on four key topics: (i) key elements of flexibility of a survey, (ii) why and how to combine data from different sources (e.g. surveys, fishery sampling) and deal with survey gaps, (iii) how to configure estimation and simulation models, and (iv) review existing tools and technology to evaluate consequences of survey effort changes. Road maps were developed for the key topic areas i, ii, iii, and iv, whenever possible, to assist scientists and survey managers in making decisions on how to evaluate and mitigate the impact of survey effort changes on data and advice quality. Many tools are available or are being developed for that purpose, but the group recognized two important needs during the workshop: i) defining clear objectives and priorities of a survey, which are essential to properly evaluate con- sequences of survey changes; and ii) making all tools accessible, reproducible, and transparent to benefit the whole community. This requires organisational and cultural shift to create support systems that ensure the development and sustainability of such tools in the future.

The objective of WKFISHDISH2 was to develop a standardized and open-source way of routinely using trawl survey data to produce distribution maps which can be easily updated. To do so, workshop participants (i) reviewed models that can produce distribution maps from survey data in DATRAS and MEDITS formats, (ii) considered best practice guidance for data, and models, (iii) implemented best practice to produce distribution maps in a transparent manner, and (iv) populated an ICES repository with distribution maps and associated scripts. Nine models were reviewed, seven of which were considered appropriate to produce distribution maps using survey data. The two models excluded failed to estimate gear standardization factors. Best practice for data should consider the following: correct/remove erroneous observations, account for changes in haul duration/timing affecting catchability, use species-specific modelled areas, remove gears/surveys with no observations to reduce model converging time, and include appropriate explanatory variables. A step-by-step list to preprocess survey data was provided. Best practice for models should consider the following: account for skewed distribution of survey data by exploring different statistical error distributions, use open-source models able to reproduce distributions from simulated data, consider the complexity of the model required vs. the run-time (e.g. number of knots), avoid extrapolating the model to areas/depths where the species is not observed, and perform relevant model diagnostics/model selection. To compare distribution estimated by different models, the SPAtial EFficiency metric (SPAEF) was used together with centres of gravity, biomass hot spots (90 th percentile), and effective occupied areas. All seven models were able to produce satisfactory distribution maps for at least one species within the workshop time constraints, both with DATRAS data in the Atlantic and the MEDITS data in the Mediterranean. Comparisons be

An ecosystem approach to fisheries management requires the consideration of commercial species as components of an ecosystem and the acknowledgement of the links between their productivity and the surrounding environment. To provide a knowledge base for such links, SEAwise consulted stakeholders throughout Europe and conducted a systematic review of the scientific literature. The systematic review resulted in 2050 articles from the literature search that were screened for their tile and abstract. 516 of them were retained for data extraction. The majority of studies were conducted in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, followed by the Western Waters, and with only a few dozen papers in the Mediterranean Sea. Cod and herring were the most studied species, temperature and more generally climate and hydrodynamics indicators were the main drivers investigated, and reproduction was the main productivity-related process. The output of the systematic review is a database of scientific articles organised by regions, species, environmental drivers and productivity-associated processes and where outcomes, but also spatial and time scales, analytical methods etc. are described in a standardised fashion. This database will be analysed in the coming months and used in the downstream tasks of WP3. The most frequently driver identified by stakeholders across regions was climate change followed by species interactions, cod, pollution, commercial fish/shellfish and plankton. Climate change effects on stocks through temperature and salinity are relatively well covered in the literature as are effects of plankton and species interaction. Studies of the effects of pollution do not occur frequently and as a consequence require a dedicated effort is made in SEAwise to remedy this. Species reported frequently by the stakeholders included cod, seabass, sardine, sole, crabs, flatfish, Norway lobster, octopus, shrimps, herring, sprat, anchovy, hake, new species (species increasing in abundance