Advertisement

Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 125–146 | Cite as

Assessing fishing impacts in a tropical reservoir through an ecosystem modeling approach

  • Juliana Strieder PhilippsenEmail author
  • Carolina V. Minte-Vera
  • Marta Coll
  • Ronaldo Angelini
Research Paper

Abstract

Ecological models are useful for evaluating fishery management scenarios, as they allow researchers to investigate alternative fishing effort, as well as varying environmental and trophic interaction scenarios. Through an ecosystem modeling approach (Ecopath with Ecosim), we addressed the possible impacts of small-scale fisheries on the structure and functioning of a tropical ecosystem (Itaipu Reservoir, Brazil). We found that fishing effects and predator–prey interactions were the main drivers explaining catch trends in the Itaipu Reservoir fisheries. The mean trophic level of catch did not change throughout the analyzed time period and no losses in secondary production from exploitation (L index) were observed, indicating that Itaipu fisheries are sustainable regarding ecosystem effects. The negative impacts of introduced species on native species seem to be greater than the fishing impacts. Fishing simulations from the ecosystem Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) reduced the biomass of some important species in the local fishery. Regarding management advice, our results indicate that fishing efforts should not be increased for curimba (Prochilodus lineatus), pintado (Pseudoplatystoma corruscans), and jaú (Zungaro jahu). Additionally, participative management methods are important measures for local fisheries. Finally, additional research is needed to investigate how fishery management can promote the use of multispecific methods (e.g., gillnets) to control introduced species.

Keywords

Ecopath with Ecosim Ecosystem-based management Inland fisheries L index Maximum sustainable yield 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper is part of the Ph.D. thesis of JSP under the supervision of CMV at University of Maringá (UEM-Brazil) with scholarship supported by Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) to JSP CAPES also supported MC (Proc. PVE A063/2013, Ed.71/2013). Thank you also to NUPÉLIA (UEM) for collecting the fishery landing dataset.

Supplementary material

11160_2018_9539_MOESM1_ESM.docx (19.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 20014 kb)

References

  1. Abujanra F, Agostinho AA (2002) Dieta de Hypophthalmus edentatus (Spix, 1829) (Osteichthyes, Hypophthalmidae) e variações de seu estoque no reservatório de Itaipu. Acta Sci Biol Sci 24:401–410Google Scholar
  2. Agostinho AA, Miranda LE, Bini LM, Gomes LC, Thomaz SM, Suzuki HI (1999) Patterns of colonization in Neotropical reservoirs, and prognoses on aging. In: Tundisi JG, Straskraba M (eds) Theoretical reservoir ecology and its applications. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp 227–265Google Scholar
  3. Agostinho AA, Gomes LC, Pelicice FM (2007) Ecologia e manejo de recursos pesqueiros em reservatórios do Brasil. Eduem, MaringáGoogle Scholar
  4. Agostinho AA, Pelicice FM, Gomes LC (2008) Dams and the fish fauna of the Neotropical region: impacts and management related to diversity and fisheries. Braz J Biol 68:1119–1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Agostinho AA, Gomes LC, Santos NCL, Ortega JCG, Pelicice FM (2016) Fish assemblages in Neotropical reservoirs: colonization patterns, impacts and management. Fish Res 173:26–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ahrens RNM, Walters CJ, Christensen V (2012) Foraging arena theory. Fish Fish 13:41–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ainsworth CH, Pitcher TJ (2006) Modifying Kempton’s species diversity index for use with ecosystem simulation models. Ecol Indic 6:623–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Allen KR (1971) Relation between production and biomass. J Fish Res Board Can 28:1573–1581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ambrósio AM, Agostinho AA, Gomes LC, Okada EK (2001) The fishery and the fishery yield of Hypophthalmus edentatus (Spix, 1829), (Siluriformes, Hypophthalmidae), in the Itaipu reservoir, Paraná State, Brazil. Acta Limnol Bras 13:93–105Google Scholar
  10. Anderson JL, Anderson CM, Chu J, Meredith J, Asche F, Sylvia G et al (2015) The fishery performance indicators: a management tool for triple bottom line outcomes. PLoS ONE 10(5):e0122809.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122809 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Angelini R, Agostinho AA (2005) Parameters estimates for fishes of the Upper Paraná River Floodplain and Itaipu reservoir (Brazil). NAGA 28:53–57Google Scholar
  12. Angelini R, Agostinho AA, Gomes LC (2006) Modeling energy flow in a large Neotropical reservoir: a tool to evaluate fishing and stability. Neotrop Ichthyol 4:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Angelini R, Morais RJ, Catella AC, Resende EK, Libralato S (2013) Aquatic food webs of the oxbow lakes in the Pantanal: a new site for fisheries guaranteed by alternated control. Ecol Model 253:82–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Arlinghaus R, Lorenzen K, Johnson BM, Cooke SJ, Cowx IG (2016) Management of freshwater fisheries: addressing habitat, people and fishes. In: Craig JF (ed) Freshwater fisheries ecology. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp 557–579Google Scholar
  15. Bartley DM, De Graaf GJ, Valbo-Jorgensen J, Marmulla G (2015) Inland capture fisheries: status and data issues. Fish Manag Ecol 22:71–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Beard DT Jr, Arlinghaus R, Cooke SJ, McIntyre PB, Silva S, Bartley D, Cowx IG (2011) Ecosystem approach to inland fisheries: research needs and implementation strategies. Biol Lett.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.0046 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Bozza AN, Hahn NS (2010) Uso de recursos alimentares por peixes imaturos e adultos de espécies piscívoras em uma planície de inundação do alto rio Paraná. Biota Neotropica 10:217–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Christensen V (1995) Ecosystem maturity—towards quantification. Ecol Model 77:3–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Christensen V (1996) Managing fisheries involving predator and prey species. Rev Fish Biol Fish 6:417–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Christensen V, Pauly D (2004) Placing fisheries in their ecosystem context, an introduction. Ecol Model 172:103–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Christensen V, Walters CJ (2004) Ecopath with Ecosim: methods, capabilities and limitations. Ecol Model 172:109–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Christensen V, Walters CJ, Pauly D, Forrest R (2008) Ecopath with Ecosim version 6. User guideGoogle Scholar
  23. Coll M, Palomera I, Tudela S, Dowd M (2008) Food-web dynamics in the South Catalan Sea ecosystem (NW Mediterranean) for 1978–2003. Ecol Model 217:95–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Coll M, Shannon LJ, Kleisner K et al (2016) Ecological indicators to capture the effects of fishing on biodiversity and conservation status of marine ecosystems. Ecol Indic 60:947–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Collie JS, Botsford LW, Hastings A, Kaplan IC, Largier JL, Livingston PA, Plagányi E, Rose KA, Wells BK, Werner FE (2016) Ecosystem models for fisheries management: finding the sweet pot. Fish Fish 17:101–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cooke SJ, Allison EH, Beard TD Jr, Arlinghaus R, Arthington AH, Bartley DM, Cowx IG, Fuentevilla C, Leonard NJ, Lorenzen K, Lynch AJ, Nguyen VM, Youn S, Taylor WW, Welcomme RL (2016) On the sustainability of inland fisheries: finding a future to the forgotten. Ambio.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0787-4 Google Scholar
  27. Core Team R (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  28. Corrales X, Coll M, Tecchio S, Belledom JM, Fernández AM, Palomera I (2015) Ecosystem structure and fishing impacts in the North-western Mediterranean Sea using a food-web model within a comparative approach. J Mar Syst 148:183–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. De Graaf G, Bartley D, Jorgensen J, Marmulla G (2015) The scale of inland fisheries, can we do better? Alternative approaches for assessment. Fish Manag Ecol 22:64–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ehrhardt NM, Ault JS (1992) Analysis of two length-based mortality models applied to bounded catch length frequencies. Trans Am Fish Soc 121:115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Essington TE, Beaudreau AH, Wiedenmann J (2006) Fishing through marine food webs. PNAS 103:3171–3175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. FAO (2003) The ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, No 4, Suppl 2. RomeGoogle Scholar
  33. FAO (2016) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016. Contributing to food security and nutrition for all. RomeGoogle Scholar
  34. FAO (2018) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018. Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals. RomeGoogle Scholar
  35. Forrest RE, Savina M, Fulton EA, Pitcher TJ (2015) Do marine ecosystem models give consistent policy evaluations? A comparison of Atlantis and Ecosim. Fish Res 167:293–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) An R companion to applied regression. SAGE Publications Inc., Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  37. Froese R, Binohlan C (2000) Empirical relationship to estimate asymptotic length, length at first maturity, and length at maximum yield per recruit in fishes, with a simple method to evaluate length frequency data. J Fish Biol 56:758–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Froese R, Pauly D (2016) FishBase. http://www.fishbase.org. Accessed 11 August 2016
  39. Gascuel D, Coll M, Fox C, Guénette S, Guitton J, Kenny A, Knittweis L, Nielsen R, Piet G, Raid T, Travers-Trolet M, Shephard S (2016) Fishing impact and environmental status in European seas: a diagnosis from stock assessments and ecosystem indicators. Fish Fish 17:31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gaspar da Luz KD, Fugi R, Abujanra F, Agostinho AA (2002) Alterations in the Pterodoras granulosus (Valenciennes, 1883) (Osteichthyes, Doradidae) diet due to the abundance variation of a bivalve invader species in the Itaipu Reservoir, Brazil. Acta Sci Biol Sci 24:427–432Google Scholar
  41. Gubiani EA, Angelini R, Vieira LCG, Gomes LC, Agostinho AA (2011) Trophic models in Neotropical reservoirs: testing hypotheses on the relationship between aging and maturity. Ecol Model 222:3838–3848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gubiani EA, Gomes LC, Agostinho AA (2012) Estimates of population parameters and consumption/biomass ratio for fishes in reservoirs, Paraná State, Brazil. Neotrop Ichthyol 10:177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hahn NS, Agostinho AA, Gomes LC, Bini LM (1998) Estrutura trófica da ictiofauna do reservatório de Itaipu (Paraná-Brasil) nos primeiros anos de sua formação. Interciencia 23:299–305Google Scholar
  44. Heymans JJ, Coll M, Link JS, Mackinson S, Steenbeek J, Walters C, Christensen V (2016) Best practice in Ecopath with Ecosim food-web models for ecosystem-based management. Ecol Model 331:173–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hilborn R (2011) Future directions in ecosystem based fisheries management: a personal perspective. Fish Res 108:235–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hoeinghaus DJ, Agostinho AA, Gomes LC, Pelicice FM, Okada EK, Latini JD, Kashiwaqui EAL, Winemiller KO (2009) Effects of river impoundment on ecosystem services of large tropical rivers: embodied energy and market value of artisanal fisheries. Conserv Biol 23:1222–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Leontief W (1951) The structure of the U.S. Economy. Oxford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Libralato S, Coll M, Tudela S, Palomera I, Pranovi F (2008) Novel index for quantification of ecosystem effects of fishing as removal of secondary production. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 355:107–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Link JS (2010) Adding rigor to ecological network models by evaluating a set of pre-balance diagnostics: a plea for PREBAL. Ecol Model 221:1580–1591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mackinson S, Daskalov G, Heymans JJ, Neira S, Arancibia H, Zetina-Rejón M, Jiang H, Cheng HQ, Coll M, Arreguin-Sanchez F, Keeble K, Shannon L (2009a) Which forcing factors fit? Using ecosystem models to investigate the relative influence of fishing and changes in primary productivity on the dynamics of marine ecosystems. Ecol Model 220:2972–2987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mackinson S, Deas B, Beveridge D, Casey J (2009b) Mixed-fishery or ecosystem conundrum? Multispecies considerations inform thinking on long-term management of North Sea demersal stocks. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 66:1107–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Musick JA (1999) Criteria to define extinction risk in marine fishes. Fish 24:6–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nelson GA (2016). Fishmethods: fishery science methods and models in R. R package version 1.10-0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=fishmethods. Accessed 19 Sept 2016
  54. Odum EP (1969) The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 164:262–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Okada EK, Agostinho AA, Ambrósio AM, Suzuki HI, Galdioli EM, Souza SR (2012) Monitoramento do rendimento e da socioeconomia da pesca no reservatório de Itaipu. Relatório Geral Científico. UEM-NUPÉLIA, MaringáGoogle Scholar
  56. Oliveira AG, Suzuki HI, Gomes LC, Agostinho AA (2015) Interspecific variation in migratory fish recruitment in the Upper Paraná River: effects of the duration and timing of floods. Environ Biol Fish 98:1327–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325:419–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Palomares MLD, Pauly D (1989) A multiple regression model for predicting the food consumption of marine fish populations. Aust J Mar Freshw Res 40:259–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pauly D, Christensen V, Dalsgaard J, Froese R, Torres F (1998) Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279:860–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Petrere Junior M (1996) Fisheries in large tropical reservoirs in South America. Lakes Reserv Res Manag 2:111–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Petry AC, Gomes LC, Piana PA, Agostinho AA (2010) The role of the predatory trahira (Pisces: Erythrinidae) in structuring fish assemblages in lakes of a Neotropical floodplain. Hydrobiologia 651:115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Philippsen JS, Minte-Vera CV, Okada EK, Carvalho AR, Angelini R (2016) Fishers’ and scientific histories: an example of consensus from an inland fishery. Mar Freshw Res.  https://doi.org/10.1071/MF16053 Google Scholar
  63. Pikitch EK, Santora C, Babcock EA, Bakun A, Bonfil R, Conover DO, Dayton P, Doukakis P, Fluharty D, Heneman B, Houde ED, Link J, Livingston PA, Mangel M, McAllister MK, Pope J, Sainsbury KJ (2004) Ecosystem-based fishery management. Science 305:346–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Core Team (2016) NLME: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme. Accessed 21 Sept 2016
  65. Quinn TJ, Deriso RB (1999) Quantitative fish dynamics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  66. Rosenberg AA, Fogarty MJ, Cooper AB, et al (2014) Developing new approaches to global stock status assessment and fishery production potential of the seas. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No 1086, Rome, FAOGoogle Scholar
  67. Scott E, Serpetti N, Steenbeek J, Heymans JJ (2016) A stepwise fitting procedure for automated fitting of Ecopath with Ecosim models. SoftwareX.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2016.02.002 Google Scholar
  68. Smith LED, Khoa SN, Lorenzen K (2005) Livelihood functions of inland fisheries: policy implications in developing countries. Water Policy 7:359–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Suuronen P, Bartley DM (2014) Challenges in managing inland fisheries—using the ecosystem approach. Boreal Environ Res 19:245–255Google Scholar
  70. Ulanowicz RE, Puccia CJ (1990) Mixed trophic impacts in ecosystems. Coenoses 5:7–16Google Scholar
  71. Valls A, Coll M, Christensen V (2015) Keystone species: toward an operational concept for marine biodiversity conservation. Ecol Monogr 85:29–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vasconcellos M, Cochrane K (2005) Overview of world status of data-limited fisheries: inferences from landings statistics. Fisheries Assessment and Management in Data-Limited Situations Alaska Sea Grant College Program AK-SG-05-02Google Scholar
  73. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wallach AD, Izhaki I, Toms JD, Ripple WJ, Shanas U (2015) What is an apex predator? Oikos 124:1453–1461.  https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.01977 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Walsh JR, Carpenter SR, Vander Zanden MJ (2016) Invasive species triggers a massive loss of ecosystem services through a trophic cascade. PNAS.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1600366113 Google Scholar
  76. Walters C, Martell S (2004) Fisheries ecology and management. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  77. Walters C, Christensen V, Pauly D (1997) Structuring dynamic models of exploited ecosystems from trophic mass-balance assessments. Rev Fish Biol Fish 7:139–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Walters C, Christensen V, Martell SJ, Kitchell JF (2005) Possible ecosystem impacts of applying MSY policies from single-species assessment. ICES J Mar Sci 62:558–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Welcomme R (2011) Review of the State of the World Fishery Resources: Inland Fisheries. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 942, Rev. 2. Rome, FAOGoogle Scholar
  80. Wetzel CR, Punt AE (2015) Evaluating the performance of data-moderate and catch-only assessment methods for U.S. west coast groundfish. Fish Res 171:170–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Winemiller KO, McIntyre PB, Castello L et al (2016) Balancing hydropower and biodiversity in the Amazon, Congo, and Mekong. Science 351:128–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PPG Ecologia de Ambientes Aquáticos ContinentaisUniversidade Estadual de MaringáMaringáBrazil
  2. 2.Inter-American Tropical Tuna CommissionLa JollaUSA
  3. 3.Institut de Ciencies del Mar (ICM-CSIC)BarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.Ecopath International Initiative Research AssociationBarcelonaSpain
  5. 5.Departamento de Engenharia CivilUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN)NatalBrazil

Personalised recommendations