Quantitative Mapping of Fish Habitat: From Knowledge to Spatialised Fishery Management

  • Sandrine VazEmail author
  • Olivier Le Pape
Conference paper


The delineation of essential fish habitats is necessary to identify, design and prioritize efficient marine protected area (MPA) networks with fishery objectives, capable, in addition to other possible objectives and functions of MPAs, of sustaining the renewal of marine living resources. Generally, the first step to obtain maps of essential fish habitats consists in choosing one of the numerous existing statistical approaches to build robust habitat suitability models linking relevant descriptors of the marine environment to the spatial distribution of fish presence or density. When these descriptors are exhaustively known, i.e. maps are available for each of them, geo-referenced predictions from these models and their related uncertainty may be imported into Geographic Information Systems for the quantitative identification and characterization of key sites for the marine living resources. The usefulness of such quantitative maps for management purposes is endless. These maps allow for the quantitative identification of the different habitats that are required for these marine resources to complete their life cycles and enable to measure their respective importance for population renewal and conservation. The consequences of anthropogenic pressures, not only fishing but also land reclamation, aggregate extractions or degradation of habitat quality (e.g. nutrient excess or xenobiotics loadings, invasive species or global change), on living resources, may also be simulated from such habitat models. These quantitative maps may serve as input in specific spatial planning software or to spatialise population or fishery dynamics, ecosystem or trophic models that may then be used to simulate various scenarios. Fish habitat maps thus may help decision makers to select relevant protection areas and design coherent MPA networks and management levels which objectives are to sustain fishing resources and fisheries.


Habitat models Fishery management 



We wish to acknowledge the many colleagues who were involved in fruitful collaborations and helpful discussions and who generated many of the thoughts and results cited here.


  1. Ashcroft M, French K, Chisholm L (2010) An evaluation of environmental factors affecting species distributions. Ecol Model 222(3):524–531Google Scholar
  2. Austin MP (2007) Species distribution models and ecological theory: a critical assessment and some possible new approaches. Ecol Model 200:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown K, Buja K, Jury S, Monaco M, Banner A (2000) Habitat suitability index models for eight fish and invertebrate species in Casco and sheepscot bays, Maine. N Am J Fish Manag 20:408–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brownman H, Stergiou K, Cury P, Hilborn R, Jennings S, Lotze H, Mace P, Murawski S, Pauly D, Sissenwine M, Stergiou KI, Zeller D (2004) Perspectives on ecosystem based approaches to the management of marine resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:269–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carpentier A, Martin CS, Vaz S (eds) (2009) Atlas des Habitats des resources Marines de la Manche Orientale—CHARM II/Channel Habitat Atlas for marine Resource Management—CHARM II.
  6. Chase JM, Leibold M (2003) Ecological niches: linking classical and contemporary approaches. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheung W, Lam V, Sarmiento J, Kearney K, Watson R, Pauly D (2009) Projecting global marine biodiversity impacts under climate change scenarios. Fish Fish 10:235–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheung WL, Lam VWY, Sarmiento JL, Kearney K, Watson R, Zeller D, Pauly D (2010) Large-scale redistribution of maximum fisheries catch potential in the global ocean under climate change. Glob Change Biol 16:24–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cordier M, Pérez Agúndez JA, O’Connor M, Rochette S, Hecq W (2011) Quantification of interdependencies between economic systems and ecosystem services: an input-output model applied to the Seine estuary. Ecol Econ 70(9):1660–1671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. David C, Vaz S, Loots C, Antajan E, Van Der Molen J, Travers-Trolet M (2015) Understanding winter distribution and transport pathways of the invasive ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi in the North Sea: coupling habitat and dispersal modelling approaches. Biol Invasions 17(9):2605–2619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Jonge VN, Pinto R, Turner RK (2012) Integrating ecological, economic and social aspects to generate useful management information under the EU Directives’ ‘ecosystem approach’. Ocean Coast Manag 68:169–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Delavenne J, Metcalfe K, Smith RJ, Vaz S, Martin CS, Dupuis L, Coppin F, Carpentier A (2012) Systematic conservation planning in the eastern English Channel: comparing the Marxan and Zonation decision-support tools. ICES J Mar Sci 69:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eastwood PD, Meaden GJ, Grioche A (2001) Modelling spatial variations in spawning habitat suitability for the sole Solea solea using regression quantiles and GIS procedures. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 224:251–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elith J, Leathwick J (2009) The contribution of species distribution modelling to conservation prioritization. In: Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possignham H (eds) Quantitative methods and computational tools. University Press, Oxford, UK, pp 196–210Google Scholar
  15. Grüss A, Kaplan D, Guénette S, Roberts CM, Botsford L (2011a) Consequences of adult and juvenile movement for marine protected areas. Biol Conserv 144:692–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grüss A, Kaplan DM, Hart DR (2011b) Relative impacts of adult movement, larval dispersal and harvester movement on the effectiveness of reserve networks. PLOS One 6(5):e19960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guisan A, Zimmermann NE (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol Model 135:147–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8:993–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guisan A, Lehman A, Ferrier S, Austin M, Overton J, Aspinall R, Hastie T (2006) Making better biogeographical predictions of species distribution. J Appl Ecol 43:386–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harden J (1968) Fish migration. Edward Arnold, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. Hayes DB, Ferreri CP, Taylor WW (1996) Linking fish habitat to their recruitment dynamics. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53(1):383–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hattab T, Ben RaisLasram F, Albouy C, Sammari C, Romdhane MS, Cury P, Leprieur F, Le Loc’h F (2013) The use of a predictive habitat model and a fuzzy logic approach for marine management and planning. PLoS ONE 8(10):e76430. Scholar
  23. Heikkinen RK, Luoto M, Araujo MB, Virkkala R, Thuiller W, Sykes MT (2006) Methods and uncertainties in bioclimatic envelope modelling under climate change. Prog Phys Geog 30:751–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Le Pape O, Chauvet F, Mahévas S, Lazure L, Guérault G, Désaunay Y (2003) Quantitative description of habitat suitability for the juvenile common sole (Soleasolea, L.) and contribution of different habitats to the adult population in the Bay of Biscay (France). J Sea Res 50(2–3):139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Le Pape O, Delavenne J, Vaz S (2014) Quantitative mapping of fish habitat: a useful tool to design spatialised management measures and Marine Protected Area with fishery objectives. Ocean Coast Manag 87:8–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leathwick J, Moilanen A, Francis M, Elith J, Taylor P, Julian K, Hastie T (2008) Novel methods for the design and evaluation of marine protected areas in offshore waters. Conserv Lett 1:91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lelievre S, Vaz S, Martin CS, Loots C (2014) Delineating recurrent fish spawning habitats in the North Sea. J Sea Res 91:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Loots C, Vaz S, Planque B, Koubbi P (2010) What controls the spatial distribution of North Sea plaice spawning population? Confronting ecological hypotheses through a model selection framework. ICES J Mar Sci 67:244–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martin CS, Carpentier A, Vaz S, Coppin F, Curet L, Dauvin JC, Delavenne J, Dewarumez JM, Dupuis L, Engelhard G, Ernande B, Foveau A, Garcia C, Gardel L, Harrop S, Just R, Koubbi P, Lauria V, Meaden GJ, Morin J, Ota Y, Rostiaux E, Smith R, Spilmont N, Vérin Y, Villanueva C, Warembourg C (2009) The Channel habitat atlas for marine resource management (CHARM): an aid for planning and decision-making in an area under strong anthropogenic pressure. Aquat Living Resour 22:499–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mello LGS, Rose GA (2005) Using geostatistics to quantify seasonal distribution and aggregation patterns of fishes: an example of Atlantic cod (Gadusmorhua). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62:659–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meng L, Cicchetti G, Raciti S (2005) Relationships between juvenile winter flounder and multiple scale habitat variation in Narraganset Bay, Rhode Island. Trans Am Fish 134:1509–1519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Metcalfe K, Vaz S, Engelhard GH, Villanueva CM, Smith RJ, Mackinson S (2015) Evaluating conservation and fisheries management strategies by linking spatial prioritization software and ecosystem and fisheries modelling tools. J Appl Ecol 52(3):665–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mills CE (2001) Chapter 4 C Pelagic Cnidaria and Ctenophora. pp 23–38. In: Hines AH, Ruiz GM (eds) Marine invasive species and biodiversity of south central Alaska. Final project report, submitted to the regional citizens’ advisory council of Prince William Sound, Anchorage, Alaska 74 pGoogle Scholar
  35. Murawski SA (1993) Climate change and marine fish distributions: forecasting from analogy. Trans Am Fish Soc 122:647–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Planque B, Loots C, Petitgas P, Lindstrom U, Vaz S (2011) Understanding what controls the spatial distribution of fish populations using a multi-model approach. Fish Oceanogr 20(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reecht Y, Gasche L, Lehuta S, Vaz S, Smith RJ, Mahévas S, Marchal P (2015) Toward a Dynamical approach for systematic conservation planning of Eastern English Channel fisheries. In: Marine productivity: perturbations and resilience of socio-ecosystems, pp 175–185. Springer International PublishingGoogle Scholar
  38. Rochette S, Rivot E, Morin J, Mackinson S, Riou P, Le Pape O (2010) Effect of nursery habitat destruction on flatfish population renewal. Application to common sole (Soleasolea, L.) in the Eastern Channel (Western Europe). J Sea Res 64:34–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rubec PJ, Bexley JCW, Norris H, Coyne MS, Monaco ME, Smith SG, Ault JS (1999) Suitability modeling to delineate habitat essential to sustainable fisheries. Am Fish Soc Symp 22:108–133Google Scholar
  40. Sale PF, Cowen RK, Danilowicz BS, Jones GP, Kritzer JP, Lindeman KC, Planes S, Polunin NV, Russ GR, Sadovy YJ (2005) Critical science gaps impede use of no-take fishery reserves. Trends Ecol Evol 20:74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Spalding MD, Fish L, Wood LJ (2008) Toward representative protection of the world’s coasts and oceans—progress, gaps, and opportunities. Conserv Lett 1(5):217–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Store R, Jokimäki J (2003) A Gis-based multi-scale approach to habitat suitability modeling. Ecol Model 169:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ter Hofstede R, Hiddink JG, Rijnsdorp AD (2010) Regional warming changes fish species richness in the eastern North Atlantic Ocean. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 414:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van de Wolfshaar K, HilleRisLambers R, Gardmark A (2011) Effect of habitat productivity and exploitation on populations with complex life cycles. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 438:175–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vaz S, Vermard Y, Gardel L (2011) Predicting species distributions: the impact of exploitation and climate change (on plaice). World Conference on Marine Biodiversity, Aberdeen, 26–30 Sep 2011Google Scholar
  46. Wood LJ, Fish L, Laughren J, Pauly D (2008) Assessing progress towards global marine protection targets: shortfalls in information and action. Oryx 42(03):340–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MARBECUniv Montpellier, CNRS, Ifremer, IRDSète CedexFrance
  2. 2.AGROCAMPUS OUEST, UMR985 ESE Ecologie et Santé Des écosystèmesRennesFrance

Personalised recommendations