North Pacific Marine Science Organization

PICES Press Vol. 22, No. 2

OSM Workshop on “Climate change and ecosystem-based management of living
marine resources: Appraising and advancing key modeling tools”
by Tim Essington, Anne B. Hollowed and Myron A. Peck
The workshop (W3), co-sponsored by the ICES/PICES
Strategic Initiative (Section) on the Impacts of Climate
Change on Marine Ecosystems (SICCME/S-CCME), wasconvened by the co-authors of this summary on April 14,
2014, as part of the PICES FUTURE Open Science Meeting.
Ten scientists representing 6 nations participated in themeeting.

biogeochemistry and the production of phytoplankton andzooplankton. He compared the pathways utilized torepresent food web connections within LTL models
highlighting the fact that these are fairly rigid and different
pathways. Many of these nutrient-phytoplanktonzooplankton-detritus (NPZD) models were never designed
to represent zooplankton dynamics, although many arebeing utilized to estimate biomass and productivity of thatcomponent. An important advancement of these LTL
models includes more mechanistic (physiological-based)
representation of life history and trait-based approaches
allowing evolution and adaptation to environmental
conditions to take place (and emergent properties ofcommunities), and more widespread inclusion andincreased complexity in representing benthic processes.
Modular models with flexible components are needed.
Furthermore, the talk stressed the importance of broadscale patterns (consistent features of groups which areindependent of habitat characteristics) that allow one tobetter validate models.

Overview
Climate variability and climate change interact with otherpressures to affect the productivity and dynamics of marine
ecosystems. Managers charged with the stewardship ofsustainable living marine resources are challenged to deal
with the consequences of this variability, and better tools
are needed to inform them. The workshop was convened to
discuss state-of-the-art tools for: (1) calculating biologicalreference points under changing climate conditions thatrecognize that equilibrium states no longer apply;(2) assessing the relative ecological and economic costs
and tradeoffs of different ecosystem-based management
scenarios, and (3) estimating the vulnerability and stabilityof ecosystems (and their key components) required to makeinformed, ecosystem-based fisheries management decisions.
The workshop was intended to provide a critical review ofmodeling tools available for fisheries management needs
and to understand what advancements are required toaddress climate-driven changes in ecosystem dynamics.

In the second invited talk, Beth Fulton (CSIRO, Australia)
provided an overview of her experience constructing
complex (parameter-rich) end-to-end models and ongoing
improvements in model structure and parameterization that
help represent real-world complexity. Her talk stressed how
ecosystems are moving targets with respect to the featuresof key components. One example was the inability toexamine temporal development in fish groups without
explicitly accounting for fishery-induced changes in size
during the early portion of the time series and both fisheryeffects and climate-induced changes. She also highlighted
the importance of exploring scenarios in end-to-end models
that include consideration of the full extent of (potentiallysurprising) human responses within multiple interacting
sectors. When used in this manner, it is possible to assess
the importance of various attributes of ecosystems (such asthe presence or absence of adaptation of key species tochange). Her work with these complex models also
highlighted the importance of collecting new information
on key groups such as mesopelagic fish and forage species,
which are a rarely studied but possibly are a criticallyimportant component in many marine food webs.
Understanding and modeling the adaptive capacity of bothbiological (food web components) and social systems areimportant challenges that need to be overcome.

Objectives
The three main objectives were to discuss state-of-the-art
tools for:1. Calculating biological reference points under changing
climate conditions that recognize that equilibrium states
no longer apply,
2. Assessing the relative ecological and economic costs
and tradeoffs of different ecosystem-based management
scenarios, and3. Estimating the vulnerability and stability of ecosystems(and their key components) required to inform ecosystembased fisheries management.
Summary
Two invited speakers provided a strong conceptual
backdrop on the current status and important avenues for
future progress in state-of-the-art ecosystem modeling. In
the first talk, Icarus Allen (PML, UK) presented an
overview of the current state of lower trophic level (LTL)models with emphasis on examining links between physics,

Alan Haynie (NOAA NMFS, USA) provided a (recorded)
talk introducing FishSET, a spatial economics toolbox tobetter incorporate fisher behavior into fisheries
management and ecosystem modeling. The model attempts
27

Summer 2014

PICES Press Vol. 22, No. 2

North Pacific Marine Science Organization

to understand how fishers respond to various aspects suchas fish or fuel prices, changes in habitat and theenvironment, bycatch regulations, catch shares, and marine
reserves or other closures. This location-choice model uses
various types of available data to evaluate what factors
explain where vessels fish (and related questions). The
fishing area is chosen as a function of key economic
indicators such as expected catch/revenue in the area, travel
costs (fuel, time, wages, the opportunity cost of not using
the boat elsewhere) and vessel characteristics (e.g.,horsepower), as well as biological and environmental
characteristics of areas. FishSET is a stand-alone Matlab
application and the presentation outlined the 7 primaryfeatures of the model. An upcoming pilot project in theNortheast/Mid-Atlantic will examine the interactions
between fishers and potential wind energy projects.

envelop models, dynamic energy budget models) undercommon scenarios, were being assessed using a spatially
explicit bio-economic model (FishRent).
A wide ranging discussion followed these talks which wasfacilitated by a 1-hour combined session with workshop W2
focusing on communicating science and effective stakeholder
engagement. Key findings from the workshop were: Models should be flexible to accommodate shifting
selectivity, growth, natural mortality, and availability.
Zooplankton and mesopelagic species, as well as theadaptive capacity of food web components need to bebetter represented.
 Fisher choice models provide insight into functional
responses which will be critical to use within end-to-end
models of marine systems, which include management
evaluation frameworks. Stock assessment and fisheriesscientists should partner to conduct retrospective studies
of fisher responses to changing conditions.
 Setting biological reference points without knowing thetrajectory to a new equilibrium state will be challenging.
Management evaluation frameworks are needed toidentify robust harvest strategies.
 Projections of the effects of climate change on futurefish and fisheries must consider also the responses offishers and managers. Developing future scenarios must
be done in conjunction with stakeholders. A set ofcandidate alternative futures is needed to set the stage
for discussion of scenarios.

In the final talk, Myron Peck (University of Hamburg,Germany) briefly introduced the EU VECTORS program
which is attempting to examine the ecological andeconomic costs and tradeoffs of changes in the distributionand productivity of outbreak forming species (such asjellyfish) and alien invasive species. Three European
regional seas are in focus (North Sea, Mediterranean Sea,and Baltic Sea). This presentation summarized efforts tobuild consistent future scenarios that allow one to not only
incorporate physical and biological changes projectedunder different greenhouse gas emission scenarios but also
the key economic (fish price, fuel price, gear investment,etc.) and policy decisions regarding spatial utilization ofocean habitats (from fisheries, renewable energy,conservation, etc.). An important take-home message wasthat future policy mechanisms may be as important as
potential climate-driven changes in the distribution of fishstocks. The talk also summarized how distributionalchanges, as detected using different approaches (bioclimate

Acknowledgements
The workshop convenors thank the invited speakers andworkshop participants for active discussions. Issues werehighlighted that can be taken up by ICES/PICES S(I)CCME
via inter-sessional work.

Dr. Tim Essington (essing@uw.edu) is a Professor of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at the University of Washington (Seattle, Washington,USA). His research examines food web interactions within a wide range of marine, estuarine and freshwater habitats. A primaryconsideration is the structuring role played by fisheries and other anthropogenic effects. His research attempts to understand thepotential conflicts between fisheries targeting species that occupy distinct positions in food webs.
Dr. Anne B. Hollowed (anne.hollowed@noaa.gov) is a Senior Scientist with the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service’s Alaska Fisheries ScienceCenter. Anne serves as Co-Chairman of the joint PICES/ICES Section on Climate Change Effects on Marine Ecosystems. She is also a lead authorof Chapter 28, Polar Regions, of the Working Group II contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange.
Dr. Myron A. Peck (myron.peck@uni-hamburg.de) is an Associate Professor of Biological Oceanography at the University of Hamburg,
Institute of Hydrobiology and Fisheries Science (Hamburg, Germany). He has a broad range of research interests related to physicaland biological processes governing marine and estuarine species and food webs, including coupling species life history and physiologyand translating that knowledge to models to advance predictive capacity.

Summer 201428