The Experts below are selected from a list of 87 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Jason S Link - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Characterizing and comparing Marine fisheries ecosystems in the United States: determinants of success in moving toward ecosystem-based fisheries management
Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 2019Co-Authors: Jason S Link, Anthony R. MarshakAbstract:To implement ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM), there is a need to comprehensively examine fundamental components of fisheries ecosystems and ascertain the characteristics and strategies facilitating this more systematic approach. Coupled natural and human factors, inherent biological productivities, and systematic governance measures all influence Living Marine Resource (LMR) and socioeconomic status within a given socio-ecological system (SES). Determining the relative prominence of these factors remains a challenge. Examining these facets to determine how much EBFM and wise LMR management occurs is timely and warranted given the many issues facing Marine fisheries ecosystems. Here we characterize major United States (U.S.) Marine fishery ecosystems by examining these facets and compiling a consistent, multidisciplinary view of these coupled SESs using commonly available, integrated data for each ecosystem. We then examine if major patterns and lessons emerge when comparing across SESs. This work also seeks to elucidate what are the determinants of successful LMR management. Although U.S.-centric, the breadth of the ecosystems explored here are likely globally applicable. Overall, we observed that inherent biological productivity was a major driver determining the level of fisheries biomass, landings, and LMR economic value for a given region, but that human interventions can offset basal production. We observed that good governance could overcome certain ecosystem limitations, and vice versa, especially as tradeoffs within regions have intensified over time. We also found that all U.S. regions are performing well in terms of certain aspects of LMR management, with unique successes and challenges observed in all regions. Although attributes of Marine fisheries ecosystems differ among regions, there are commonalities that can be applied and transferred across them. These include having: clear stock status identified; relatively stable but attentive management interventions; clear tracking of broader ecosystem considerations; landings to biomass exploitation rates at typically
-
Report of the 2nd National Ecosystem Modeling Workshop (Nemow II): Bridging the Credibility Gap - Dealing with Uncertainty in Ecosystem Models
2013Co-Authors: Jason S Link, Thomas F. Ihde, Howard Townsend, Kenric Eben Osgood, Michael J. Schirripa, Donald R. Kobayashi, Sarah K. Gaichas, John C. Field, Phillip S. Levin, Kerim Y. AydinAbstract:s of Keynote Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Science Center and Office Responses to Questions about Ecosystem Modeling Uncertainty . . 9 Summary of Major Sources of Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Commentary on TOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Workshop Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Appendix A Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Appendix B Participants List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Appendix C Steering Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Appendix D Breakout Group Questions for each TOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Appendix E Ecosystem Modeling Best Practices List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Appendix F National Standards for Ecosystem Modeling in a Living Marine Resource Management Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Appendix G Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
-
dealing with uncertainty in ecosystem models the paradox of use for Living Marine Resource management
Progress in Oceanography, 2012Co-Authors: Jason S Link, Thomas F. Ihde, John C. Field, Chris J Harvey, Sarah Gaichas, Jon K T Brodziak, H Townsend, Randall M PetermanAbstract:Abstract To better manage Living Marine Resources (LMRs), it has become clear that ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) is a desired approach. To do EBFM, one of the key tools will be to use ecosystem models. To fully use ecosystem models and have their outputs adopted, there is an increasingly recognized need to address uncertainty associated with such modeling activities. Here we characterize uncertainty as applied to ecosystem models into six major factors, including: natural variability; observation error; inadequate communication among scientists, decision-makers and stakeholders; the structural complexity of the model(s) used; outcome uncertainty; and unclear management objectives. We then describe best practices to address each of these uncertainties as they particularly apply to ecosystem models being used in a LMR management context. We also present case studies to highlight examples of how these best practices have been implemented. Although we acknowledge that this work was compiled by ecosystem modelers in an LMR management context primarily for other ecosystem modelers, the principles and practices described herein are also germane for managers, stakeholders and other natural Resource management communities. We conclude by emphasizing not only the need to address uncertainty in ecosystem models, but also the feasibility and benefits of doing so.
-
Ecosystem-based fisheries management in the Northwest Atlantic
Fish and Fisheries, 2011Co-Authors: Jason S Link, Alida Bundy, William J. Overholtz, Nancy L. Shackell, John P. Manderson, Daniel E. Duplisea, Jon Hare, Mariano Koen-alonso, Kevin D. FriedlandAbstract:The northwest Atlantic has had a notable history of Living Marine Resource (LMR) exploitation. There have been calls for evaluating and improving approaches to manage those Resources as stocks have undergone sequential depletion, with some dramatic instances of stock declines. The need for more holistic ecosystem-based approaches to manage LMRs has been increasingly recognized as part of these calls, along with the recognition that there are broader issues to consider when managing a fishery. We discuss some of the major efforts to this end which are extant among our institutions. We emphasize current initiatives to implement ecosystem-based fisheries management in the northwest Atlantic, with a focus on how advice based on the natural sciences supports an ecosystem-based approach. We present this information as a case study within a rich historical context of fisheries science and management.
-
the northeast us application of atlantis a full system model exploring Marine ecosystem dynamics in a Living Marine Resource management context
Progress in Oceanography, 2010Co-Authors: Jason S Link, Elizabeth A Fulton, Robert J GambleAbstract:Abstract Understanding Marine ecosystem dynamics is a key challenge and opportunity facing us. One of the ways we can continue to unravel and understand Marine ecosystem dynamics is via ecosystem modeling. We used one such model, ATLANTIS, to help explore the dynamics of the Northeast United States (NEUS) Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (LME). We have parameterized ATLANTIS for the NEUS LME by including major functional groups across a range of biota, the physiographic dynamics of the ecosystem, and the major fishing fleets. The objectives of this work were to describe the application of this ATLANTIS NEUS model; briefly highlight modeling skill; note areas for further improvement, data gaps, major lessons learned, and how our understanding of the ecosystem was enhanced as we executed the modeling process; and note how these model outputs could inform Living Marine Resource management in this region. The preliminary results we show here describe outputs from a multivariate, multispecies, multifactorial modeling approach. Our modeling skill is reasonable, as determined by the fact that over 90% of our fleet effort estimates, nearly 80% of our functional group catches, and 100% of our main functional group biomasses were within limits of tolerance. Moreover, the general patterns and phenology of major events were replicated consistently, both in space and time across a broad suite of physical, chemical, biological and human factors. These include several taxa groups such as primary producers, zooplankton, benthos, fishes, Marine mammals, as well as nutrients, landings, and fishing effort. Conversely, as expected, there were some groups or fleets that did exceed levels of tolerance. These were mostly invertebrate groups such as shrimp, squid or gelatinous zooplankton, groups which are notorious for being difficult to model. Yet the major taxa groups and main fishing fleets were all well within levels of tolerance. Thus, we assert that with the majority of all main processes and state variables simulated, this ATLANTIS model can indeed reasonably approximate observations for the NEUS LME across a range of factors, and more importantly can be used to evaluate the relative prominence across a range of factors that contribute to the dynamics of this Marine ecosystem.
Randall M Peterman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
dealing with uncertainty in ecosystem models the paradox of use for Living Marine Resource management
Progress in Oceanography, 2012Co-Authors: Jason S Link, Thomas F. Ihde, John C. Field, Chris J Harvey, Sarah Gaichas, Jon K T Brodziak, H Townsend, Randall M PetermanAbstract:Abstract To better manage Living Marine Resources (LMRs), it has become clear that ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) is a desired approach. To do EBFM, one of the key tools will be to use ecosystem models. To fully use ecosystem models and have their outputs adopted, there is an increasingly recognized need to address uncertainty associated with such modeling activities. Here we characterize uncertainty as applied to ecosystem models into six major factors, including: natural variability; observation error; inadequate communication among scientists, decision-makers and stakeholders; the structural complexity of the model(s) used; outcome uncertainty; and unclear management objectives. We then describe best practices to address each of these uncertainties as they particularly apply to ecosystem models being used in a LMR management context. We also present case studies to highlight examples of how these best practices have been implemented. Although we acknowledge that this work was compiled by ecosystem modelers in an LMR management context primarily for other ecosystem modelers, the principles and practices described herein are also germane for managers, stakeholders and other natural Resource management communities. We conclude by emphasizing not only the need to address uncertainty in ecosystem models, but also the feasibility and benefits of doing so.
Patrick Mcconney - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem (CLME) Project: governance framework and project structure
2020Co-Authors: Lucia Fanning, Robin Mahon, Patrick Mcconney, Bertha SimmonsAbstract:The CLME project aims to strengthen regional cooperation to reverse degradation of the shared Living Marine Resources within the Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem and adjacent regions. Its focus is on the identification and agreement of major transboundary Living Marine Resource management issues and their root causes; actions needed to address these constraints, including filling knowledge gaps and the implementation of governance reforms for Living Marine Resource management; and, ecosystem-wide monitoring, reporting and evaluation. This presentation will outline the approach necessary to respond to the need cited by key decision-makers for attention to the management of shared Marine Resources in the Caribbean LME and adjacent regions and the call to provide mechanisms facilitating informed decision-making.
-
Applying the large Marine ecosystem (LME) governance framework in the Wider Caribbean Region
Marine Policy, 2013Co-Authors: Lucia Fanning, Robin Mahon, Patrick McconneyAbstract:The large Marine ecosystem (LME) governance framework was developed to address the complexity inherent within the Wider Caribbean Region with respect to the region's shared Living Marine Resources. The framework is adaptable to all multi-scale Living Marine Resource situations and provides a basis for incremental implementation of interventions. Parts of the overall governance framework can be targeted for sub-framework development and strengthening through institutional reforms and capacity building. Three examples, the Eastern Caribbean flyingfish fishery, Marine protected area (MPA) management and the Eastern Caribbean tuna fishery, are used to illustrate the application of the framework in facilitating and assessing governance effectiveness in the Caribbean. In each case, the purpose is to show the different governance questions that must be addressed at policy, strategy and action levels to make up a complete governance arrangement and how these are distributed among several levels on the institutional scale that typically occur in regional Marine Resource governance.
-
Working with Principles and Visions
MARE Publication Series, 2013Co-Authors: Sharon Almerigi, Lucia Fanning, Robin Mahon, Patrick McconneyAbstract:The geo-political complexity and diversity within the Wider Caribbean Region call for cooperation in Living Marine Resource governance. Most Living Marine Resources are transboundary and require some level of international cooperation for sustainable use. Guided by the Interactive Governance Approach, this Wider Caribbean consultation on ecosystem-based management (EBM) employed facilitation methods to explore multi-level functionality, shared vision, guiding principles and priority actions. Inclusivity and participation were emphasized in the agenda, which began with presentations from participants on principled ocean governance and recent advances in Marine EBM. These were followed by a visioning process facilitated in groups, with each group representing expertise in specific ecosystems and regional governance. Informal, small group conversations followed. Throughout the process, the set of governance principles identified by consensus earlier on were revisited and used as a lens through which to view subsequent outputs. A vision synthesis and map of strategic directions based on process outputs was compiled and shared with participants after the symposium. The process described in this chapter generated a rich collection of ideas and suggestions for EBM in the Wider Caribbean upon which further conversations can build. These types of processes are seen as fundamental to enhancing governability by engaging stakeholders in building and articulating a foundation of shared principles and visions for Marine EBM.
-
focusing on Living Marine Resource governance the caribbean large Marine ecosystem and adjacent areas project
Coastal Management, 2009Co-Authors: Lucia Fanning, Robin Mahon, Patrick McconneyAbstract:This article provides an overview of Living Marine Resource governance in the Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) and discusses how this relates to ecosystem-based management at the geographical scale of the LME. It also provides an overview of the approach to governance reform that will be taken by the Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem and Adjacent Areas Project. The geopolitical complexity of the Caribbean region is such that regional governance appears to be more challenging there than in most other regions. The proximity of states leads to a high incidence of transboundary issues regarding Living Marine Resources. The high proportion of small island developing states (SIDS), defined at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development as countries facing specific social, economic, and environmental vulnerabilities, and high incidence of coastal use for industry, tourism, fisheries, and urban development leads to heavy impacts on coastal and Marine Resources. Regarding institutional a...
Thomas F. Ihde - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Report of the 2nd National Ecosystem Modeling Workshop (Nemow II): Bridging the Credibility Gap - Dealing with Uncertainty in Ecosystem Models
2013Co-Authors: Jason S Link, Thomas F. Ihde, Howard Townsend, Kenric Eben Osgood, Michael J. Schirripa, Donald R. Kobayashi, Sarah K. Gaichas, John C. Field, Phillip S. Levin, Kerim Y. AydinAbstract:s of Keynote Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Science Center and Office Responses to Questions about Ecosystem Modeling Uncertainty . . 9 Summary of Major Sources of Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Commentary on TOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Workshop Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Appendix A Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Appendix B Participants List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Appendix C Steering Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Appendix D Breakout Group Questions for each TOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Appendix E Ecosystem Modeling Best Practices List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Appendix F National Standards for Ecosystem Modeling in a Living Marine Resource Management Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Appendix G Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
-
dealing with uncertainty in ecosystem models the paradox of use for Living Marine Resource management
Progress in Oceanography, 2012Co-Authors: Jason S Link, Thomas F. Ihde, John C. Field, Chris J Harvey, Sarah Gaichas, Jon K T Brodziak, H Townsend, Randall M PetermanAbstract:Abstract To better manage Living Marine Resources (LMRs), it has become clear that ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) is a desired approach. To do EBFM, one of the key tools will be to use ecosystem models. To fully use ecosystem models and have their outputs adopted, there is an increasingly recognized need to address uncertainty associated with such modeling activities. Here we characterize uncertainty as applied to ecosystem models into six major factors, including: natural variability; observation error; inadequate communication among scientists, decision-makers and stakeholders; the structural complexity of the model(s) used; outcome uncertainty; and unclear management objectives. We then describe best practices to address each of these uncertainties as they particularly apply to ecosystem models being used in a LMR management context. We also present case studies to highlight examples of how these best practices have been implemented. Although we acknowledge that this work was compiled by ecosystem modelers in an LMR management context primarily for other ecosystem modelers, the principles and practices described herein are also germane for managers, stakeholders and other natural Resource management communities. We conclude by emphasizing not only the need to address uncertainty in ecosystem models, but also the feasibility and benefits of doing so.
John C. Field - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Report of the 2nd National Ecosystem Modeling Workshop (Nemow II): Bridging the Credibility Gap - Dealing with Uncertainty in Ecosystem Models
2013Co-Authors: Jason S Link, Thomas F. Ihde, Howard Townsend, Kenric Eben Osgood, Michael J. Schirripa, Donald R. Kobayashi, Sarah K. Gaichas, John C. Field, Phillip S. Levin, Kerim Y. AydinAbstract:s of Keynote Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Science Center and Office Responses to Questions about Ecosystem Modeling Uncertainty . . 9 Summary of Major Sources of Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Commentary on TOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Workshop Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Appendix A Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Appendix B Participants List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Appendix C Steering Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Appendix D Breakout Group Questions for each TOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Appendix E Ecosystem Modeling Best Practices List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Appendix F National Standards for Ecosystem Modeling in a Living Marine Resource Management Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Appendix G Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
-
dealing with uncertainty in ecosystem models the paradox of use for Living Marine Resource management
Progress in Oceanography, 2012Co-Authors: Jason S Link, Thomas F. Ihde, John C. Field, Chris J Harvey, Sarah Gaichas, Jon K T Brodziak, H Townsend, Randall M PetermanAbstract:Abstract To better manage Living Marine Resources (LMRs), it has become clear that ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) is a desired approach. To do EBFM, one of the key tools will be to use ecosystem models. To fully use ecosystem models and have their outputs adopted, there is an increasingly recognized need to address uncertainty associated with such modeling activities. Here we characterize uncertainty as applied to ecosystem models into six major factors, including: natural variability; observation error; inadequate communication among scientists, decision-makers and stakeholders; the structural complexity of the model(s) used; outcome uncertainty; and unclear management objectives. We then describe best practices to address each of these uncertainties as they particularly apply to ecosystem models being used in a LMR management context. We also present case studies to highlight examples of how these best practices have been implemented. Although we acknowledge that this work was compiled by ecosystem modelers in an LMR management context primarily for other ecosystem modelers, the principles and practices described herein are also germane for managers, stakeholders and other natural Resource management communities. We conclude by emphasizing not only the need to address uncertainty in ecosystem models, but also the feasibility and benefits of doing so.