Study of the demersal fish community of the Flemish Cap (NAFO Div. 3M): Changes in community structure and

common trends during the period 1988-2008.

Alfonso Pérez-Rodríguez, Mariano Koen-Alonso*, Fran Saborido-Rey

Institute of Marine Research, CSIC, Spain.*Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Centre, DFO, Canada.

ICES/NAFO Symposium on the variability of the North Atlantic and its marine ecosystems during 2000-2009Santander, Spain, May 10-12 2011

Fisheries Ecology

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

American Plaice Atlantic Cod Atlantic Redfishes (ns)

Greenland Halibut Northern Prawn Skates (ns)-58 -56 -54 -52 -50 -48 -46 -44 -4242

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

3M3N3O

3L

3Ps

3K

2J

Flem ish C ap

G rand Bank

N ew foundland

200m

1000m

1500m2000m

Flem

ish

Pas

s

-90º

-70º

-50º

-30º

-10º

10º

30º

36º

44º

52º

60º

68º

76º

84º

Introduction: Flemish Cap.

-2.25

-1.75

-1.25

-0.75

-0.25

0.25

0.75

1.25

1.75

2.25

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

IceCoverage

TempSupSurv

LimInfCILSurv

NAO

1.- Study of the whole demersal fish community: common trends in time series of biomass of both commercial and non commercial species from 1988 to 2008.

2.- Evaluation of the importance of:- Oceanographic conditions- Fishing.- Post-larval predation.

Aims of the study

Material & methods

1.- Material:• Index of Biomass by swept area and temperature from the EU (IEO, IIM-CSIC,

AZTI-Tecnalia and IPIMAR) July surveys in Flemish Cap for the period 1988-2008.

• NAO index from the NOAA website: http://www.cpc.noaa.gov

• Declared and estimated catches from the NAFO website and scientific assessments: http://www.nafo.int/about/frames/about.html

2.- Methods:• Dynamic Factor Analysis (DFA) (Zuur et al, 2003).

• MDS and PERMANOVA.

Groups of demersal speciesGrupo 1 Grupo 2 Grupo 3

Amblyraja radiata Anarhichas denticulatus

Anarhichas lupus Anarhichas minor

Bathyraja spinicauda Gadus morhua

Glyptocephalus cynoglossus Hippoglossoides platessoides

Illex illecebrosus Lycodes reticulatus Macrourus berglax

Nezumia bairdi Pandalus borealis

Reinhardtius hippoglossoides Sebastes fasciatus Sebastes marinus Sebastes mentella

Antimora rostrata Aspidophoroides monopterygius

Coryphaenoides rupestris Cottunculus microps

Enchelyopus cimbrius Gaidropsarus ensis

Lumpenus lampretaeformis Lycodes esmarki

Lycodes vahli Malacoraja senta

Notacanthus chemnitzii Synaphobranchus kaupi

Triglops murrayi Urophycis chesteri

Alepocephalus agassizi Lepidion eques

Alepocephalus bairdi Liparis fabricii

Amblyraja hyperborea Liparis liparis

Amblyraja jenseni Lophius americanus

Ammodytes sp. Lycenchelys paxillus

Aphanopus carbo Lycodonus flagellicauda

Argentina silus Melanogrammus aeglefinus

Bathypterois dubius Merluccius bilinearis

Boreogadus saida Petromyzon marinus

Brosme brosme Pollachius virens

Careproctus micropus Polyacanthonotus rissoanus

Centroscyllium fabricii Raja bathyphila

Coelorinchus coelorhinchus Rajella fyllae

Cottunculus thompsoni Simenchelys parasitica

Dipturus linteus Squalus acanthias

Etmopterus princeps Trachyrhynchus murrayi

Holtbyrnia macrops Urophycis chuss

Leptagonus decagonus Urophycis tenuis

1

Groups of species:

•Group 1: >0.05% total biomass•Group 2: <0.05% total biomass & > 15 years•Group 3: <0.05% total biomass & < 15 years

DFA models. Groups I and II

1.- Models without explanatory variables, only common trends

2.- Models with explanatory variables:

- NAO index: average value of 4,5,6 and 7 previous years

- Index of Fishing pressure:

AEF=Total catches/Total fish biomass

- Predation: Piscivorous abundance

Year

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1990 1995 2000 2005

Amblyraja radiataAnarhichas denticulatusAnarhichas lupusAnarhichas minorBathyraja spinicaudaGadus morhuaGlyptocephalus cynoglossusHippoglossoides platessoidesIllex illecebrosusLycodes reticulatusMacrourus berglaxNezumia bairdiPandalus borealisReinhardtius hippoglossoidesSebastes fasciatusSebastes marinusSebastes mentella

Year

Bio

mas

s

0

20

40

60

80

1990 1995 2000 2005

Results: Group of species I

Model fit Residuals

1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006

-3-2-1012345678

3 Trends

Year

Value

Trend 1 Trend 2 Trend 3

AD AL

AM

AR

BS

GC

GM

HP II

LR

MB

NB

PB

RH

SF

SM

a

SM

e

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

Factor loadings

Species

Value

Trend 1Trend 2Trend 3

1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006

-3-2-1012345678

1 Trend + NAO + AEF + Piscivorous

Year

Value

AD AL

AM

AR

BS

GC

GM

HP II

LR

MB

NB

PB

RH

SF

SM

a

SM

e

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

Factor loadings & Coefficients

Species

Value

Factor loadingsNAOAEFPiscivorous

Results: Group of species I

Variables 1 trend 2 trend 3 trendWith no explanatory variables 838.5 828.8 826.2NAO 806.3 795.5 804.2AEF 804.3 791.1 802.4Piscivorous 790 787.4 779.6NAO+AEF 740.5 746.5 750.3NAO+Piscivorous 705.3 698.3 714.6AEF+Piscivorous 712.5 703.2 722.8NAO+AEF+Piscivorous 610.9 617.5 638.7

AIC values

1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006

-3-2-1012345678

3 Trends

Year

Value

Trend 1 Trend 2 Trend 3

AD AL

AM

AR

BS

GC

GM

HP II

LR

MB

NB

PB

RH

SF

SM

a

SM

e

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

Factor loadings

Species

Value

Trend 1Trend 2Trend 3

1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006

-3-2-1012345678

1 Trend + NAO + AEF + Piscivorous

Year

Value

AD AL

AM

AR

BS

GC

GM

HP II

LR

MB

NB

PB

RH

SF

SM

a

SM

e

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

Factor loadings & Coefficients

Species

Value

Factor loadingsNAOAEFPiscivorous

Variables 1 trend 2 trend 3 trendWith no explanatory variables 838.5 828.8 826.2NAO 806.3 795.5 804.2AEF 804.3 791.1 802.4Piscivorous 790 787.4 779.6NAO+AEF 740.5 746.5 750.3NAO+Piscivorous 705.3 698.3 714.6AEF+Piscivorous 712.5 703.2 722.8NAO+AEF+Piscivorous 610.9 617.5 638.7

AIC values

Model fit Residuals

Results: Group of species II

Year

Biom

ass

0.0

0.5

1.0

1990 1995 2000 2005Year

0

1

2

3

4

1990 1995 2000 2005

Antimora rostrataAspidophoroides monopterygiusCoryphaenoides rupestrisCottunculus micropsEnchelyopus cimbriusGaidropsarus ensisLumpenus lampretaeformisLycodes esmarkiLycodes vahliMalacoraja sentaNotacanthus chemnitziiSynaphobranchus kaupiTriglops murrayiUrophycis chesteri

1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008

-4-3-2-1012345678

3 Trends

Year

Value

Trend 1 Trend 2

An.r

o

As.m

o

Co.m

i

Co.r

u

En.c

i

Ga.e

n

Lu.la

Ly.e

s

Ly.v

a

Ma.s

e

No.c

h

Sy.k

a

Tr.

mu

Ur.

ch

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Factor loadings

Species

Value

Trend 1Trend 2

1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008

-3-2-101234567

1 Trend + NAO + AEF + Piscivorous

Year

Value

An.r

o

As.m

o

Co.m

i

Co.r

u

En.c

i

Ga.e

n

Lu.la

Ly.e

s

Ly.v

a

Ma.s

e

No.c

h

Sy.k

a

Tr.

mu

Ur.

ch

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

Factor loadings & Coefficients

Species

Value

Factor loadingsNAOAEFPiscivorous

Variables 1 trend 2 trend 3 trendWith no explanatory variables 730.6 721.9 728.8NAO 719.7 724.2 729.5AEF 735 727.4 728.3Piscivorous 700.7 696.3 707.6NAO+AEF 716.3 722.3 724.5NAO+Piscivorous 685.5 688 698.1AEF+Piscivorous 700.8 697.3 703.2NAO+AEF+Piscivorous 682.9 686.6 694.1

AIC values

1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008

-4-3-2-1012345678

3 Trends

Year

Value

Trend 1 Trend 2

An.r

o

As.m

o

Co.m

i

Co.r

u

En.c

i

Ga.e

n

Lu.la

Ly.e

s

Ly.v

a

Ma.s

e

No.c

h

Sy.k

a

Tr.

mu

Ur.

ch

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Factor loadings

Species

Value

Trend 1Trend 2

1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008

-3-2-101234567

1 Trend + NAO + AEF + Piscivorous

Year

Value

An.r

o

As.m

o

Co.m

i

Co.r

u

En.c

i

Ga.e

n

Lu.la

Ly.e

s

Ly.v

a

Ma.s

e

No.c

h

Sy.k

a

Tr.

mu

Ur.

ch

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

Factor loadings & Coefficients

Species

Value

Factor loadingsNAOAEFPiscivorous

Variables 1 trend 2 trend 3 trendWith no explanatory variables 730.6 721.9 728.8NAO 719.7 724.2 729.5AEF 735 727.4 728.3Piscivorous 700.7 696.3 707.6NAO+AEF 716.3 722.3 724.5NAO+Piscivorous 685.5 688 698.1AEF+Piscivorous 700.8 697.3 703.2NAO+AEF+Piscivorous 682.9 686.6 694.1

AIC values

Model fit Residuals

Results: Group of species II

Values of coefficients in groups I and II: NAO indexGroup Species MinTemp MaxTemp Average Preference NAO Grupo I Amblyraja radiata 2 10 6 Warmer -0.07907 Grupo I Anarhichas denticulatus 1.6 4 2.8 Colder 0.60473 Grupo I Anarhichas lupus -0.4 4 1.8 Colder 0.83015 Grupo I Anarhichas minor -1.35 5 1.825 Colder 1.0037 Grupo I Bathyraja spinicauda -1.5 3.3 0.9 Colder 0.17153 Grupo I Gadus morhua -0.5 10 4.75 Warmer -0.24059 Grupo I Glyptocephalus cynoglossus 2 6 4 Warmer 0.02792 Grupo I Hyppoglossoides platessoides 0 2 1 Colder 0.07728 Grupo I Illex illecebrosus Based in distribution maps Warmer -0.28467 Grupo I Lycodes reticulatus -0.9 3.5 1.3 Colder 0.46257 Grupo I Macrourus berglax 2 3.5 2.75 Colder 0.44746 Grupo I Nezumia bairdi 3 8 5.5 Warmer 0.53408 Grupo I Pandalus borealis -1.6 12 5.2 Warmer -0.26229 Grupo I Reinhardtius hippoglossoides 0 4.5 2.25 Colder 0.31961 Grupo I Sebastes fasciatus 2.8 8.3 5.55 Warmer -0.29053 Grupo I Sebastes marinus 3 7 5 Warmer -0.21754 Grupo I Sebastes mentella

0 Colder 0.20492

Grupo II Antimora rostrata 2.7 4 3.35 Colder -0.32035 Grupo II Aspidophoroides monopterigius -1 2.5 0.75 Colder -0.04004 Grupo II Coryphaenoides rupestris 3.5 4.5 4 Warmer -0.13016 Grupo II Cottunculus microps 0 4 2 Colder 0.14981 Grupo II Enchelyopus cimbrius Based in distribution maps from FishBase Warmer -0.17454 Grupo II Gaidropsarus ensis 0 2.5 1.25 Colder -0.14387 Grupo II Lumpenus Lumpretaeformis 0 2.5 1.25 Colder 0.02793 Grupo II Lycodes esmarki 0.5 3.5 2 Colder 0.64211 Grupo II Lycodes vahlii 1 4.5 2.75 Colder 0.82736 Grupo II Malacoraja senta 3 8 5.5 Warmer -0.34559 Grupo II Notacanthus chemnitzii 2 4 3 Colder 0.35942 Grupo II Synaphobranchus kaupi 1 10 5.5 Warmer -0.23016 Grupo II Triglops murrayi By Scott & Scott comments Colder 0.63831 Grupo II Urophycis chesteri 1.6 9.7 5.65 Warmer -0.23129

Values of coefficients in groups I and II: AEF and Piscivorous

FishSp EAF Piscivorous AR 0.08766 -0.44071 AD -0.02698 -0.33784 AL 0.51024 -0.25912 AM 0.38416 -0.20367 BS 0.15379 -0.39768

GM -0.29773 0.31114 GC -0.19295 -0.47794 HP 0.13791 0.03702 II -0.84599 -0.02802

LR 0.79597 -0.13638 MB 0.51118 -0.51468 NB 0.51686 -0.56863 PB 0.62192 0.36516 RH 0.27671 0.43931 SF -1.2725 -0.44757

SMa -1.20655 -0.3834 SMe -0.6585 -0.27562

FishSp EAF Piscivorous An.ro -0.1465 -0.31093 As.mo 0.55162 -0.08197 Co.ru -0.36057 -0.37552 Co.mi 0.5826 -0.3195 En.ci -0.04168 -0.59358

Ga.en -0.51033 -0.55485 Lu.la 0.32887 -0.06476 Ly.es 0.87612 -0.13131 Ly.va 0.63354 -0.29026 Ma.se 0.4143 0.09597 No.ch 0.3827 -0.22467 Sy.ka -0.24606 -0.24727 Tr.mu 0.62955 0.2437 Ur.ch -0.02825 -0.09439

Group I Group II

Analysis of obtained common trendsGroup I

Group II

Results: Group of species III

Year

Bio

mas

s0.

00.

51.

0

1990 1995 2000 2005

Subgroup I

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

1990 1995 2000 2005

Subgroup II

0.00

00.

005

0.01

0

1990 1995 2000 2005

Subgroup III

0.00

000.

0002

0.00

040.

0006

0.00

080.

0010

0.00

12

1995 2000 2005

Subgroup IVSUBGROUP I Centroscyllium fabricii Melanogrammus aeglefinus Urophycis chuss Urophycis tenuisSUBGROUP II Amblyraja hyperborea Aphanopus carbo Argentina silus Brosme brosme Coelorinchus coelorhinchus Cottunculus thompsoni Dipturus linteus Etmopterus princeps Lophius americanus Petromyzon marinus Pollachius virens Raja bathyphila Rajella fyllae Squalus acanthiasSUBGROUP III Alepocephalus bairdi Leptagonus decagonus Liparis liparis Lycenchelys paxillus Lycodonus flagellicauda Merluccius bilinearis Simenchelys parasitica Trachyrhynchus murrayiSUBGROUP IV Alepocephalus agassizi Amblyraja jenseni Ammodytes sp. Bathypterois dubius Boreogadus saida Careproctus micropus Holtbyrnia macrops Lepidion eques Liparis fabricii Polyacanthonotus rissoanus

Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity

TempAnomalyPositiveNegative

2003

2000

19991996

20011997

2007

1989

1993

2008

2005

1998

2002

1991

1992

19941990

1988

2004

2006

1995

3D Stress: 0.11

Results: Group of species III

PERMANOVA: significant differences between “positive” and “negative” groups of years.

MDS:

Recruitment or migration?

• For species of group III, Flemish Cap present suboptimum conditions.

• As the thermal conditions change, the “rare” species composition changes.

• No migration: previous works pointed to the isolation of the shallowest populations.

• The two years overlap of cold and warm periods points towards a recruitment process:

Larval “immigration”?

“Ghost” adults?

Conclusions1.- The NAO index seems to be a good predictor for the dynamic of the fish demersal community in Flemish Cap due to its correlation with oceanographic conditions (mainly temperature).

2.- Fish predation is a key driver in the changes observed in the demersal community and its relative importance in relation to the other forcing factors is higher in the group of species II than in the group I.

3.- Fishing activity has shown a significant effect, although it was more important in the group of commercially important species (group I). Deviance from the expected negative effect could be ascribed to indirect effects (e.g. trophic cascades).

4.- In the group of rare species, changes could be related with variations in recruitment in relation with temperature preferences. Larval “immigration” is possible, although the existence of “ghost” adult individuals is a plausible hypothesis.

5.- The aim of this study are the global effects and global responses. Individual species studies, considering the spatial dimension are necessary in order to go deeper in the relationship of each particular species dynamics with the biotic and abiotic conditions surrounding it.

Special thanks to:• Staff from the NAFC-DFO.• AZMP programe• Staff involved in the EU annual survey (IEO, IPIMAR, AZTI-Tecnalia and IIM)• NEREUS program.

Alfonso Pérez-Rodríguez, Mariano Koen-Alonso*, Fran Saborido-Rey

Institute of Marine Research, CSIC, Spain.*Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Centre, DFO, Canada.

ICES/NAFO Symposium on the variability of the North Atlantic and its marine ecosystems during 200-2009Santander, Spain, May 10-12 2011

Fisheries Ecology