Advertisement

pp 1-36 | Cite as

Ecosystem Modelling in Support of Ecosystem-Based Management in the Caspian

  • Georgi M. DaskalovEmail author
  • Asgar Abdoli
  • Mekhman Akhundov
  • Jakhan Annachariyeva
  • Kuanysh Isbekov
  • Raisa Khodorevskaya
  • Yulia Kim
  • Tariyel Mammadli
  • Boris Morozov
  • Orazmuhammet Muradov
  • Reza Shahifar
Chapter
  • 87 Downloads
Part of the The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry book series

Abstract

Nowadays, resource overexploitation and climate change are worldwide recognised as considerable threats to the sustainable development of socio-economic systems and environment well-being. With a growing evidence, highlighting the uncertain state and future of world fish stocks, new approaches to fisheries management that take account of fishing and climate change effects on ecosystems structure and function are being called for. The ecosystem-based bioresources management (EBBM) is defined as a science-based approach of managing human activities, such as fishing, fish stock enhancement and drivers of pollution/eutrophication, with a view to in parallel conserve and sustainably use in the long-term run, the nature living resources. It is meant to deal with issues such as scientific assessment of the Caspian ecosystem and fisheries, environmental change (including climate), biological interactions, anthropogenic impacts (pollution, overfishing), conservation and recovery of biodiversity (habitats, populations), as well as the social and economic impacts. Major task to promote EBBM in the Caspian region was to also provide the decision-makers with innovative tools to support both traditional and innovative management practices.

This paper describes the construction and application of an ecosystem model of the Caspian using the Ecopath, Ecosim, Ecospace approach (EwE). The EwE model is meant to answer simple, ecosystem-wide questions about the dynamics and the response of the ecosystem to anthropogenic changes. It can help to design policies aimed at implementing EBBM and can provide testable insights into changes that have occurred in the ecosystem.

The study proved that the ecosystem components and various fish populations in the Caspian interact in a rather complex way, even though described by a relatively simple trophic model. The effects of predation and other multi-species interactions, combined with climate change and anthropogenic pressures, create a formidable challenge for the ecosystem and bioresource managers – a challenge that needs new approaches and directions.

The proposed ecosystem model demonstrates its ability to resolve multi-species interactions and habitat preferences and account for environmental and anthropogenic stressors, in the process of evaluating spatial management scenarios.

The most important factor dominating in all possible scenarios is the illegal fishing or IUUC. The main targets of the IUU fishing are the stocks of valuable fish resources, especially sturgeons. Therefore, the control over IUUC must be a priority target for the EBBM, especially when building recovery strategies for sturgeons.

The evaluation of spatial scenarios demonstrates that the effects of protected areas (SPACE) are proportional to the size of the closed areas and specific (for different fish groups) to their placement. SPACEs have to be sufficiently large and to cover the main target fish distribution areas. Effective IUUC control measures need to be enforced inside of the SPACEs and even better in the whole region.

The importance of the benthic pathways is pronounced in the North Caspian. It seems that pelagic and benthic systems are relatively decoupled. However, the relatively high importance of the benthic system may buffer the population explosion of the invasive Mnemiopsis leidyi; as a result the effect of this species in the North Caspian is expected to be less severe compared to other areas of the sea.

Keywords

Food web Illegal fishing (IUUC) Mnemiopsis leidyi Sturgeon Trophic control 

Abbreviations

B

Biomass

CAB

Commission of Aquatic Bioresources

CEP

Caspian Environmental Program

E

Emigration rate

EAFM

Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management

EBBM

Ecosystem-based bioresources management

EE

Ecotrophic efficiency

EwE

Ecopath with Ecosim and Ecospace

F

Fishing mortality rate

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GEF

Global Environmental Facility

I

Immigration rate

IUUC

Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Catch

M

Natural mortality rate

M2

Predation mortality

MPA

Marine Protected Area

MTI

Mixed trophic impacts

NGO

Nongovernmental organisation

P/B

Production/biomass

Q

Consumption rate

Q/B

Consumption/biomass

RCP

Random Centre and Periphery scenarios

SPACE

Special Protected Area for the Caspian Ecosystem

Vij

Vulnerability transfer rates

Z

Total mortality rate

References

  1. 1.
    Cury PM, Shin Y-J, Planque B, Durant JM, Fromentin J-M, Kramer-Schadt S, Stenseth NC, Travers M, Grimm V (2008) Ecosystem oceanography for global change in fisheries. Trends Ecol Evol 23(6):338–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    deYoung B, Barange M, Beaugrand G, Harris R, Perry RI, Scheffer M, Werner F (2008) Regime shifts in marine ecosystems: detection, prediction and management. Trends Ecol Evol 23(7):402–409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hutchings JA (2000) Collapse and recovery of marine fishes. Nature 406:882–885ADSPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    FAO (2002) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. http://www.fao.org
  5. 5.
    Botsford LW, Castilla JC, Petersen CH (1997) The management of fisheries and marine ecosystems. Science 277:509–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garcia SM, Cochrane KL (2005) Ecosystem approach to fisheries: a review of implementation guidelines. ICES J Mar Sci 62:311–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jennings S, Kaiser M (1998) The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. Adv Mar Biol 34:201–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaiser MJ, de Groot SJ (2000) Effects of fishing on non-target species and habitats: biological, conservation and socio-economic issues. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 105–117Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Murawski S (2000) Definitions of overfishing from an ecosystem perspective. ICES J Mar Sci 57(3):649–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bilio M, Niermann U (2004) Is the comb jelly really to blame for it all? Mnemiopsis leidyi and the ecological concerns about the Caspian Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 269:173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Daskalov GM, Mamedov EV (2007) Integrated fisheries assessment and possible causes for the collapse of anchovy kilka in the Caspian Sea. ICES J Mar Sci 64:503–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Daskalov GM (2012) Pilot ecosystem model (Ecopath/Ecospace) as a tool for EBBM in the Caspian. CaspEco unpublished reportGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Christensen V, Walters C, Pauly D (2005) Ecopath with Ecosim: a user’s guide. Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 154 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Allen RR (1971) Relation between production and biomass. J Fish Res Board Can 28:1573–1581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    Daskalov GM (2002) Overfishing drives a trophic cascade in the Black Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 225:53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Osterblom H, Hansson S, Larsson U, Hjerne O, Wulff F, Elmgren R, Folke C (2007) Human-induced trophic cascades and ecological regime shifts in the Baltic Sea. Ecosystems 10:877–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mackinson S, Daskalov G, Heymans S, Neira S, Arancibia H, Zetina-Rejón M, Hong J, Hequin C, Coll M, Arreguin-Sanchez F, Shannon L, Keeble K (2008) 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(21):2972–2987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coll M, Alberto Santojanni A, Palomera I, Arneri E (2009) Food-web changes in the Adriatic Sea over the last three decades. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 381:17–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mackinson S, Deas B, Beveridge D, Casey J (2009) Mixed-fishery or ecosystem conundrum? Multispecies considerations inform thinking on long-term management of North Sea demersal stocks. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 66:1107–1129, 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Walters C, Pauly D, Christensen V (1999) Ecospace: predictions of mesoscale spatial patterns in trophic relationships of exploited ecosystems, with empahsis on the impacts of marine protected areas. Ecosystems 2:539–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pauly D, Christensen V, Walters C (2000) Ecopath, Ecosim and Ecospace as tools for evaluating ecosystem impact of fisheries. ICES J Mar Sci 57:697–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Caddy JF (1975) Spatial model for an exploited shellfish population, and its application to the Georges Bank scallop fishery. J Fish Res Board Can 32:1305–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martell SJD, Essington T, Lsessrd B, Kitchell JF, Walters CJ, Boggs CH (2005) Interactions of productivity, predation risk and fishing effort in the efficacy of marine protected areas for the central Pacific. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62:1320–1336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Daskalov GM, Mackinson S, Cheng HQ, Pinnegar JK (2009) Evaluation of the usefulness of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) for management of recovery of fish stocks and ecosystems in the North Sea. In: Palomares MLD, Morissette L, Cisneros-Montemayor A, Varkey D, Coll M, Piroddi C (eds) Ecopath 25 years conference proceedings: extended abstracts, pp 50–51. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 17(3). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727]. 167 pGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cury PM, Shannon LJ, Roux J-P, Daskalov GM, Jarre A, Moloney CL, Pauly D (2005) Trophodynamic indicators for an ecosystem approach to fisheries. ICES J Mar Sci 62:430–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ulanowicz RE, Puccia CJ (1990) Mixed trophic impacts in ecosystems. Coenoses 5:7–16Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Le Quesne WJF, Arreguin-Sanchez F, Albanez-Lucero M, Cheng H, Cruz Escalona VH, Daskalov G, Ding H, Gonzalez Rodriguez E, Heymans JJ, Jiang H, Lercari D, Lopez-Ferreira C, Lopez-Rocha JA, Mackinson S, Pinnegar JK, Polunin NVC, Wu J, Xu H, Zetina-Rejon MJ (2008) Analysing ecosystem effects of selected marine protected areas with Ecospace spatial ecosystem models. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 16(2). Fisheries Centre, University of British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mackinson S, Daskalov G (2007) An ecosystem model of the North Sea to support an ecosystem approach to fisheries management: description and parameterisation. Science Series Technical Report, Cefas Lowestoft, 142. 196 ppGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Daskalov GM, Grishin A, Rodionov S, Mihneva V (2007) Trophic cascades triggered by overfishing reveal possible mechanisms of ecosystem regime shifts. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:10518–10523. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0701100104 ADSPubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georgi M. Daskalov
    • 1
    Email author
  • Asgar Abdoli
    • 2
  • Mekhman Akhundov
    • 3
  • Jakhan Annachariyeva
    • 4
  • Kuanysh Isbekov
    • 5
  • Raisa Khodorevskaya
    • 6
  • Yulia Kim
    • 7
  • Tariyel Mammadli
    • 3
  • Boris Morozov
    • 8
  • Orazmuhammet Muradov
    • 9
  • Reza Shahifar
    • 10
  1. 1.Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research (IBER-BAS)SofiaBulgaria
  2. 2.Environmental Sciences Research InstituteShahid Beheshti University (SBU)TehranIran
  3. 3.Azerbaijan Fisheries Research Institute, Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of the Republic of AzerbaijanBakuAzerbaijan
  4. 4.National Institute of Desert, Flora and Fauna of Ministry of Nature Protection of TurkmenistanAshgabatTurkmenistan
  5. 5.Kazakh Scientific and Research Institute of FisheriesAlmataKazakhstan
  6. 6.CaspNIRKh, 414056 Russian FederationAstrakhanRussia
  7. 7.Atyrau Branch of the Kazakh Scientific and Research Institute of FisheriesAtyrauKazakhstan
  8. 8.ANO “Centre for International Projects”MoscowRussia
  9. 9.State Committee of Fish IndustryAshgabatTurkmenistan
  10. 10.Iranian Fisheries OrganizationTehranIran

Personalised recommendations