Quantitative Mapping of Fish Habitat: From Knowledge to Spatialised Fishery Management
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.
KeywordsHabitat 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.
- Ashcroft M, French K, Chisholm L (2010) An evaluation of environmental factors affecting species distributions. Ecol Model 222(3):524–531Google Scholar
- 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. http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00000/7377/
- 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
- 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
- Harden J (1968) Fish migration. Edward Arnold, London, UKGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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