Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Effects of fisheries on ecosystems: just another top predator?
- 3 Physical forcing in the southwest Atlantic: ecosystem control
- 4 The use of biologically meaningful oceanographic indices to separate the effects of climate and fisheries on seabird breeding success
- 5 Linking predator foraging behaviour and diet with variability in continental shelf ecosystems: grey seals of eastern Canada
- 6 Distribution and foraging interactions of seabirds and marine mammals in the North Sea: multispecies foraging assemblages and habitat-specific feeding strategies
- 7 Spatial and temporal variation in the diets of polar bears across the Canadian Arctic: indicators of changes in prey populations and environment
- 8 Biophysical influences on seabird trophic assessments
- 9 Consequences of prey distribution for the foraging behaviour of top predators
- 10 Identifying drivers of change: did fisheries play a role in the spread of North Atlantic fulmars?
- 11 Monitoring predator–prey interactions using multiple predator species: the South Georgia experience
- 12 Impacts of oceanography on the foraging dynamics of seabirds in the North Sea
- 13 Foraging energetics of North Sea birds confronted with fluctuating prey availability
- 14 How many fish should we leave in the sea for seabirds and marine mammals?
- 15 Does the prohibition of industrial fishing for sandeels have any impact on local gadoid populations?
- 16 Use of gannets to monitor prey availability in the northeast Atlantic Ocean: colony size, diet and foraging behaviour
- 17 Population dynamics of Antarctic krill Euphausia superba at South Georgia: sampling with predators provides new insights
- 18 The functional response of generalist predators and its implications for the monitoring of marine ecosystems
- 19 The method of multiple hypotheses and the decline of Steller sea lions in western Alaska
- 20 Modelling the behaviour of individuals and groups of animals foraging in heterogeneous environments
- 21 The Scenario Barents Sea study: a case of minimal realistic modelling to compare management strategies for marine ecosystems
- 22 Setting management goals using information from predators
- 23 Marine reserves and higher predators
- 24 Marine management: can objectives be set for marine top predators?
- Index
- References
18 - The functional response of generalist predators and its implications for the monitoring of marine ecosystems
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 July 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Effects of fisheries on ecosystems: just another top predator?
- 3 Physical forcing in the southwest Atlantic: ecosystem control
- 4 The use of biologically meaningful oceanographic indices to separate the effects of climate and fisheries on seabird breeding success
- 5 Linking predator foraging behaviour and diet with variability in continental shelf ecosystems: grey seals of eastern Canada
- 6 Distribution and foraging interactions of seabirds and marine mammals in the North Sea: multispecies foraging assemblages and habitat-specific feeding strategies
- 7 Spatial and temporal variation in the diets of polar bears across the Canadian Arctic: indicators of changes in prey populations and environment
- 8 Biophysical influences on seabird trophic assessments
- 9 Consequences of prey distribution for the foraging behaviour of top predators
- 10 Identifying drivers of change: did fisheries play a role in the spread of North Atlantic fulmars?
- 11 Monitoring predator–prey interactions using multiple predator species: the South Georgia experience
- 12 Impacts of oceanography on the foraging dynamics of seabirds in the North Sea
- 13 Foraging energetics of North Sea birds confronted with fluctuating prey availability
- 14 How many fish should we leave in the sea for seabirds and marine mammals?
- 15 Does the prohibition of industrial fishing for sandeels have any impact on local gadoid populations?
- 16 Use of gannets to monitor prey availability in the northeast Atlantic Ocean: colony size, diet and foraging behaviour
- 17 Population dynamics of Antarctic krill Euphausia superba at South Georgia: sampling with predators provides new insights
- 18 The functional response of generalist predators and its implications for the monitoring of marine ecosystems
- 19 The method of multiple hypotheses and the decline of Steller sea lions in western Alaska
- 20 Modelling the behaviour of individuals and groups of animals foraging in heterogeneous environments
- 21 The Scenario Barents Sea study: a case of minimal realistic modelling to compare management strategies for marine ecosystems
- 22 Setting management goals using information from predators
- 23 Marine reserves and higher predators
- 24 Marine management: can objectives be set for marine top predators?
- Index
- References
Summary
It is often suggested that changes in the population biology of higher predators can be used as proxies for other processes within marine ecosystems, such as changes in the size of prey populations. However, such predators are almost always generalists, which are likely to respond to changes in the abundances of more than one prey species. Using data from a terrestrial generalist predator, we show that the form of the relationship between energy intake and the abundance of a focal prey species can vary greatly depending on the abundance of alternative prey, and that such proxies may have insufficient statistical power to detect even substantial changes in prey abundance. We then consider whether alternative approaches to analysing the data collected by higher-predator monitoring schemes might provide more reliable information on ecosystem processes.
An increasing number of nations and intergovernmental organizations have accepted the principle that the exploitation of living resources should be conducted using an ecosystem-based approach (e.g. the 1996 amendment to the US Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act or the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (United Nations 1995), see also Aqorau (2003)). The objectives of such an approach are rarely clearly defined, but they usually involve ensuring that the ‘health’ or ‘integrity’ of an ecosystem is maintained. For example, the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement states that one aim of fisheries management is to ‘maintain the integrity of marine ecosystems and minimize the risk of long-term or irreversible effects of fishing operations’ (United Nations 1995).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Top Predators in Marine EcosystemsTheir Role in Monitoring and Management, pp. 262 - 274Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2006
References
Aqorau, T. (2003). Obligations to protect marine ecosystems under international conventions and other legal instruments. In Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem, eds. & . Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing, pp. 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asseburg, C., (2005). Modelling uncertainty in multi-species predator–prey interactions. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of St Andrews.
. (1976). The components of arthropod predation. II. The predator rate of increase. J. Anim. Ecol., 45, 165–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CCAMLR (1982). Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. http://www.ccamlr.org/pu.e/pubs/bd/pt1p2.htm.
CCAMLR (1985). CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Program: Standard Methods (revised 2004). http:/www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/pubs/std-meth04.pdf
(2001). The ecosystem approach to managing fisheries: achieving conservation objectives for predators of fished species. CCAMLR Sci., 8, 37–64.Google Scholar
. (2000). Managing fisheries to conserve the Antarctic marine ecosystem: practical implementation of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). ICES J. Mar. Sci., 57, 778–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Reid, K. & (1999). Diet, provisioning and productivity responses of marine predators to differences in availability of Antarctic krill. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 177, 115–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2003). Signals from seabirds indicate changing biology of capelin stocks. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 258, 253–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Alcorn, M. L. & Jacobson, K. L. (2002). Nutrient Composition of Whole Vertebrate Prey (Excluding Fish) Fed in Zoos. Beltsville, MD: AWIC, US Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
, Leising, A., Frost, B., Strom, S. & Murray, J. W. (2003). Functional responses for zooplankton feeding on multiple resources: a review of assumptions and biological dynamics. Deep-Sea Res. II, 50, 2847–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, de Oliveira, J. A. A., Johnston, S. J. & Cunningham, C. L. (1999). Development and application of management procedures for fisheries in southern Africa. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 56, 952–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1998). Assuming reproduction to be a function of consumption raises doubts about some popular predator–prey models. J. Anim. Ecol., 67, 325–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2003). Coping with uncertainty in ecological advice: lessons from fisheries. Trends Ecol. Evol., 18, 617–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Hurley, M. M. & Hudson, P. J. (2002). Territorial status and survival in red grouse Lagopus lagopus scoticus: hope for the doomed surplus?J. Avian Biol., 33, 56–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (1997). Fisheries stock assessment and decision analysis: the Bayesian approach. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish., 7, 35–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (1999). Harvest strategy evaluation for the eastern stock of gemfish (Rexea solandri). ICES J. Mar. Sci., 56, 860–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (1999). Numerical and functional responses in generalist predators: hen harriers and peregrines on Scottish grouse moors. J. Anim. Ecol., 68, 879–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (1996). The diet of Antarctic fur seals Arctocephalus gazella during the breeding season at South Georgia. Polar Biol., 16, 104–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2001). Environmental response of upper trophic-level predators reveals a system change in an Antarctic marine ecosystem. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 268, 377–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefansson, G. (2003). Multi-species and ecosystem models in a management context. In Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem, eds. & . Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing, pp. 171–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Butterworth, D. S., Boyd, I. L. & Croxall, J. P. (2000). Modeling the consequences of Antarctic krill harvesting on Antarctic fur seals. Ecol. Applic., 10, 1806–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations (1995). The United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (in force as from 11 December 2001) (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention agreements/convention overview fish stocks.htm)
(1998). Local trophodynamics and the interaction of marine mammals and fisheries in the Benguela ecosystem. J. Anim. Ecol., 67, 635–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13
- Cited by