| Literature DB >> 25781459 |
Dimitrios Damalas1, Christos D Maravelias2, Giacomo C Osio3, Francesc Maynou4, Mario Sbrana5, Paolo Sartor5.
Abstract
We investigate long-term changes in the Mediterranean marine resources driving the trawl fisheries by analysing fishers' perceptions (Traditional Ecological Knowledge, TEK) throughout the Mediterranean Sea during the last 80 years. To this end, we conducted an extended set of interviews with experienced fishers that enabled us to classify species (or taxa) as 'decreasing' or 'increasing' both in terms of abundance, as well as average size in the catch. The aspect that most clearly emerged in all the investigated areas over time was the notable increase of fishing capacity indicators, such as engine power and fishing depth range. Atlantic mackerel, poor cod, scorpionfishes, striped seabream, and John Dory demonstrated a decreasing trend in the fishers' perceived abundance, while Mediterranean parrotfish, common pandora, cuttlefish, blue and red shrimp, and mullets gave indications of an increasing temporal trend. Although, as a rule, trawler captains did not report any cataclysmic changes (e.g. extinctions), when they were invited to estimate total catches, a clear decreasing pattern emerged; this being a notable finding taking into account the steep escalation of fishing efficiency during the past century. The overall deteriorating status of stocks in most Mediterranean regions calls for responsible management and design of rebuilding plans. This should include historical information accounting for past exploitation patterns that could help defining a baseline of fish abundance prior to heavy industrial fisheries exploitation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25781459 PMCID: PMC4364015 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119330
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Map showing the ports where the interviews with the fishermen were carried out.
SPAIN (GSA 6): 1: Port de la Selva; 2: Roses; 3: Palamos; 4: Blanes; 5: Arenys de Mar; 6: Mataro; 7: Barcelona; 8: Vilanova i la Geltrù; 9: Tarragona; 10: Cambrils; 11: L’Ametlla de Mar; 12: San Carles de la Rapita; ITALY (GSA 9 & 17): 13: Viareggio; 14: Livorno; 15: Elba Island; 16: Castiglione della Pescaia; 17: Porto Santo Stefano; 18: Porto Ercole; 19: Civitavecchia; 20: Fiumicino; 21: Ponza Island; 22: Civitanova Marche; GREECE (GSA 20 & 22) 23: Nea Michaniona; 24: Chalkis; 25: Peireas; 26: Patra. Country maps source: ©OpenStreetMap contributors. http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
The set of candidate models.
|
|
|
|---|---|
|
| s(kW:Period) + s(Depth: Period) + Period + Country+ s(Fisherman, bs = “re”) |
|
| s(kW: Period) + s(Depth: Period) +Period + Country + GSA +s(Fisherman, bs = “re”) |
|
| s(kW: Period) + s(Depth) + Period + Country + GSA + s(Fisherman, bs = “re”) |
|
| s(kW) + s(Depth) + Period + Country + GSA +s(Fisherman, bs = “re”) |
|
| s(kW: Period) + Depth + Period+ Country + GSA +s(Fisherman, bs = “re”) |
|
| s(kW: Period) + Depth + Period+ Country + s(Fisherman, bs = “re”) |
|
| s(kW: Period) + Depth + Period+ GSA + s(Fisherman, bs = “re”) |
|
| s(kW: Period) +Period+ Country + s(Fisherman, bs = “re”) |
|
| s(kW: Period) + Country + s(Fisherman, bs = “re”) |
GSA = Geographical Sub-Areas
s() is a smooth function represented using penalized regression splines [25].
Covariate “Fisherman” was estimated through penalized random effects (bs = “re”).
Fig 2Median overall engine power (in kW) and fishing depth (in meters) of the vessels used by the fishermen interviewed over time.
Upper and lower whiskers indicate 25–75% percentiles around the median.
List of taxa reported by the fishers.
| Taxon | English name | Abundance | Size trend | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D | S | I | D | S | I | ||
|
| Blue and red shrimp | 4 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 |
|
| Giant rd shrimp | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
|
| Bogue | 6 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 0 |
|
| Spotted flounder | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Sea bass | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
|
| Anchovy | 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 1 |
|
| Horned/musky octopus | 8 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 12 | 2 |
|
| Broadtail shortfin squid | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Striped seabream | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
|
| Squids | 3 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 1 |
|
| Anglerfishes | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 |
|
| Red mullet | 15 | 21 | 5 | 9 | 32 | 1 |
|
| European hake | 38 | 27 | 11 | 17 | 56 | 6 |
|
| Blue whiting | 10 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 12 | 2 |
|
| Striped red mullet | 3 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 11 | 0 |
|
| Red mullets | 8 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 10 | 4 |
|
| Norway lobster | 11 | 9 | 4 | 2 | 21 | 2 |
|
| Common octopus | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 1 |
|
| Blackspot seabream | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| Common Pandora | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
|
| Caramote prawn | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 |
|
| Deep sea pink shrimp | 10 | 21 | 5 | 4 | 28 | 1 |
|
| Blue fish | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Rays | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
|
| Gilthead seabream | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Small spotted catshark | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Mediterranean parrotfish | 1 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 7 | 0 |
|
| Picarel | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
|
| Mantis shrimp | 6 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 12 | 1 |
|
| Cuttlefish | 4 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 0 |
|
| Sardine | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
|
| European mackerel | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 0 |
|
| Picarel | 5 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 0 |
|
| Common sole | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Scophthalmidae | Flatfishes | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Scorpionfishes | 5 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0 |
|
| Squalid sharks | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| Poor cod | 5 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
|
| Horse mackerel | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| Horse Mackerels | 4 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 11 | 1 |
| Triglidae | Gurnards | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| John Dory | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
The number of times in which they were assigned to the groups ‘INCREASE’ (‘I’), ‘DECREASE’ (‘D’) and ‘STABLE’ (‘S’) is reported.
Results of the PERMANOVA Analyses.
| ABUNDANCE | Df | SumsOfSqs | MeanSqs |
|
| Pr(> |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 2 | 1.574 | 0.78694 | 2.6392 | 0.03727 | 0.01 |
|
| 2 | 4.290 | 2.14509 | 7.1940 | 0.10160 | 0.01 |
|
| 4 | 1.772 | 0.44307 | 1.4859 | 0.04197 | 0.04 |
|
| 116 | 34.588 | 0.29818 | 0.8191 | ||
|
| 124 | 42.225 | 1 |
Permutational multivariate analyses of variance based on the Euclidean dissimilarity measure for presence-absence data. The tests were done using 9999 permutations under the reduced model.
Fig 3Non-metric Multi Dimensional Scaling (nMDS) ordination comparing species abundance trends responses outputs across the different locations (Country).
The position of each dot is defined by the assemblage of species recorded in each interview.
Abundance trends: most important taxa characterizing groups ‘I’,‘D’ and‘S’ by SIMPER analysis.
| GROUP | Taxon | Average frequency of occurrence | Contribution (%) | Cumulative Sum (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 0.200 | 5.62 | 5.62 |
|
| 0.290 | 5.33 | 10.95 | |
|
| 0.128 | 5.17 | 16.12 | |
|
| 0.151 | 4.86 | 20.98 | |
|
| 0.081 | 4.65 | 25.63 | |
|
|
| 0.227 | 6.47 | 6.47 |
|
| 0.116 | 5.64 | 12.11 | |
|
| 0.050 | 5.2 | 17.31 | |
|
| 0.062 | 5.17 | 22.48 | |
|
| 0.089 | 5.09 | 27.57 | |
|
|
| 0.583 | 10.45 | 10.45 |
|
| 0.154 | 6.94 | 17.39 | |
|
| 0.220 | 6.76 | 24.15 | |
|
| 0.220 | 6.76 | 30.91 | |
|
| 0.537 | 6.46 | 37.37 |
The fish taxa are listed in decreasing order of their importance in typifying the groups ‘INCREASE’ (‘I’), ‘DECREASE’ (‘D’) and‘STABLE’ (‘S’) by SIMPER analysis performed on presence/absence data. Cut off for low contributions: 90.00%. ‘I’ vs‘D’ overall between group dissimilarity 81.34; ‘D’ vs‘S’ overall between group dissimilarity 79.07; ‘S’ vs‘I’ overall between group dissimilarity 82.66
Fig 4Non-metric Multi Dimensional Scaling (nMDS) ordination comparing species size trends responses outputs across the different locations (Country).
The position of each dot is defined by the assemblage of species recorded in each interview.
Size trends: most important taxa characterizing groups ‘I’,‘D’ and‘S’ by SIMPER analysis.
| GROUP | Taxon | Average frequency of occurrence | Contribution (%) | Cumulative Sum (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 0.273 | 10.01 | 10.01 |
|
| 0.154 | 8.29 | 18.30 | |
|
| 0.070 | 7.07 | 25.37 | |
|
| 0.070 | 7.07 | 32.44 | |
|
| 0.149 | 5.80 | 38.24 | |
|
|
| 0.125 | 4.71 | 4.71 |
|
| 0.160 | 4.60 | 9.31 | |
|
| 0.082 | 4.16 | 13.47 | |
|
| 0.069 | 4.10 | 17.57 | |
|
| 0.102 | 4.01 | 21.58 | |
|
|
| 0.964 | 18.83 | 18.83 |
|
| 0.497 | 14.21 | 33.04 | |
|
| 0.300 | 8.69 | 41.73 | |
|
| 0.235 | 7.32 | 49.05 | |
|
| 0.688 | 6.64 | 55.69 |
The fish taxa are listed in decreasing order of their importance in typifying the groups ‘INCREASE’ (‘I’), ‘DECREASE’ (‘D’) and‘STABLE’ (‘S’) by SIMPER analysis performed on presence/absence data. Cut off for low contributions: 90.00%. ‘I’ vs‘D’ overall between group dissimilarity 76.85; ‘D’ vs‘S’ overall between group dissimilarity 73.81; ‘S’ vs‘I’ overall between group dissimilarity 76.96
Generalized Additive Mixed Model results for factors affecting total catches.
| df | F | P-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| as.factor(Period) | 3 | 46.453 | <2e-16 |
| as.factor(Country) | 2 | 0.027 | 0.974 |
s: smooth function represented using penalized regression splines
df: degrees of freedom
edf: estimated degrees of freedom
F: F-ratio test score
P-value: refers to the p-values from an ANOVA F-ratio test
“:”: interaction among terms
R-sq: The adjusted r-squared for the model. Defined as the proportion of variance explained
REML: Random efects maximum likelihood score
Family: gaussian; Link function: identity; Formula (Response variable as a function of predictor variables): catch_kg ~as.factor(Period) + s(kW, by = Period) + s(avg.depth, by = Period) + as.factor(Country) + s(Fisherman, bs = “re”, by = dummy var).
Fig 5Generalized additive mixed model (GAMM) derived effects of engine power (kW), fishing depth, Period, and Country on the catch rates reported by fishers.
Gray shaded area and dashed lines of upper and lower brackets indicate 2 standard errors above and below the estimates shown in solid lines. The relative density of data points is shown by the ‘rug’ on the x-axis.
Generalized Additive Mixed Model results for factors affecting total catches, taking into account correction for technological creeping.
| df | F | P-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| as.factor(Period) | 2 | 34.29 | 1.87e-12 |
s: smooth function represented using penalized regression splines
df: degrees of freedom
edf: estimated degrees of freedom
F: F-ratio test score
P-value: refers to the p-values from an ANOVA F-ratio test
“:”: interaction among terms
R-sq: The adjusted r-squared for the model. Defined as the proportion of variance explained
REML: Random efects maximum likelihood score
Family: gaussian; Link function: identity; Formula (Response variable as a function of predictor variables): catch_kg ~ s(kW, by = Period) + s(avg.depth) + Period + offset(Q) + s(Fisherman, bs = “re”, by = dummy var).
Fig 6Generalized additive mixed model (GAMM) derived effects of engine power (kW), fishing depth, and Period on the catch rates reported by fishers, after correcting for technological creeping.
Gray shaded area and dashed lines of upper and lower brackets indicate 2 standard errors above and below the estimates shown in solid lines. The relative density of data points is shown by the ‘rug’ on the x-axis.