NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-183

NOAA Fisheries Service's

Large Marine Ecosystems Program:

Status Report

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

July 2004
164. An Overview of the Social and Economic Survey Administered during Round II of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery

Disaster Assistance Program. By Julia Olson and Patricia M. Clay. December 2001. v + 69 p., 3 figs., 18 tables, 2 app. NTIS Access.

No. PB2002-105406.

165. A Baseline Socioeconomic Study of Massachusetts’ Marine Recreational Fisheries. By Ronald J. Salz, David K. Loomis,

Michael R. Ross, and Scott R. Steinback. December 2001. viii + 129 p., 1 fig., 81 tables, 4 app. NTIS Access. No. PB2002-108348.

166. Report on the Third Northwest Atlantic Herring Acoustic Workshop, University of Maine Darling Marine Center,

Walpole, Maine, March 13-14, 2001. By William L. Michaels, ed. & co-conven., and Philip Yund, co-conven. December 2001. iv +

18 p., 14 figs., 2 app. NTIS Access. No. PB2003-101556.

167. Assessment and Characterization of Salt Marshes in the Arthur Kill (New York and New Jersey) Replanted after a Severe

Oil Spill. By David B. Packer, ed. December 2001. x + 228 p., 54 figs., 58 tables, 6 app. NTIS Access. No. PB2004-106067.

168. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2001. By Gordon T. Waring, Janeen M. Quintal, and

Steven L. Swartz, eds., Phillip J. Clapham, Timothy V.N. Cole, Carol P. Fairfield, Aleta Hohn, Debra L. Palka, Marjorie C. Rossman, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, and Cynthia Yeung, contribs. December 2001. vii + 310 p., 43 figs., 54 tables, 2 app. NTIS Access. No. PB2002-

104350.

169. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2002. By Gordon T. Waring, Janeen M. Quintal, and

Carol P. Fairfield, eds., Phillip J. Clapham, Timothy V.N. Cole, Lance P. Garrison, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Aleta A. Hohn,

Blair G. Maise, Wayne E. McFee, Debra L. Palka, Patricia E. Rosel, Marjorie C. Rossman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Frederick W. Wenzel,

and Cynthia Yeung, contribs. September 2002. vii + 318 p., 42 figs., 56 tables, 4 app. NTIS Access. No. PB2003-104167.

170. Interaction of Shelf Water with Warm-Core Rings, Focusing on the Kinematics and Statistics of Shelf Water Entrained

within Streamers. By Ronald J. Schlitz. March 2003. v + 35 p., 26 figs., 3 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-100158.

171. Length-Weight Relationships for 74 Fish Species Collected during NEFSC Research Vessel Bottom Trawl Surveys. By

Susan E. Wigley, Holly M. McBride, and Nancy J. McHugh. March 2003. vi + 26 p., 1 fig., 3 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2003-106486.

172. Variability of Temperature and Salinity in the Middle Atlantic Bight and Gulf of Maine Based on Data Collected as

Part of the MARMAP Ships of Opportunity Program, 1978-2001. By Jack W. Jossi and Robert L. Benway. March 2003. vi + 92

p., 74 figs., 5 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2004-100835.

173. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Barndoor Skate, Dipturus laevis, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. By

David B. Packer, Christine A. Zetlin, and Joseph J. Vitaliano. March 2003. v + 23 p., 14 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB2003-104257.

174. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Clearnose Skate, Raja eglanteria, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.

By David B. Packer, Christine A. Zetlin, and Joseph J. Vitaliano. March 2003. v + 50 p., 25 figs., 2 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2003-

104260.

175. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Little Skate, Leucoraja erinacea, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. By

David B. Packer, Christine A. Zetlin, and Joseph J. Vitaliano. March 2003. v + 66 p., 27 figs., 2 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2003-104259.

176. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Rosette Skate, Leucoraja garmani virginica, Life History and Habitat

Characteristics. By David B. Packer, Christine A. Zetlin, and Joseph J. Vitaliano. March 2003. v + 17 p., 11 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access.

No. PB2003-104258.

177. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Smooth Skate, Malacoraja senta, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. By

David B. Packer, Christine A. Zetlin, and Joseph J. Vitaliano. March 2003. v + 26 p., 15 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB2003-104256.

178. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Thorny Skate, Amblyraja radiata, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. By

David B. Packer, Christine A. Zetlin, and Joseph J. Vitaliano. March 2003. v + 39 p., 18 figs., 2 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2003-104255.

179. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Winter Skate, Leucoraja ocellata, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.

By David B. Packer, Christine A. Zetlin, and Joseph J. Vitaliano. March 2003. v + 57 p., 25 figs., 2 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2003-

104254.

180. Variability in Blood Chemistry of Yellowtail Flounder, Limanda ferruginea, with Regard to Sex, Season, and Geographic

Location. By Renee Mercaldo-Allen, Margaret A. Dawson, Catherine A. Kuropat, and Diane Kapareiko. September 2003. vi + 20 p., 1

fig., 10 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2004-107074.

Recent Issues in This Series:
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Donald L. Evans, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., USN (ret.), Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

July 2004

This series represents a secondary level of scientific publishing. All issues employ

thorough internal scientific review; some issues employ external scientific review.

Reviews are -- by design -- transparent collegial reviews, not anonymous peer

reviews. All issues may be cited in formal scientific communications.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-183

Kenneth Sherman, Peter Celone, and Sally Adams

NOAA Fisheries Service's

Large Marine Ecosystems Program:

Status Report

National Marine Fisheries Serv., 28 Tarzwell Dr., Narragansett, RI 02882
Editorial Notes

Publication Date: In order to distribute a prepublication draft of this document at a September 2004 conference, the issue

number (i.e., 183) and publication date (i.e., July 2004) were assigned in summer 2004. Subsequent to that time, some new

information was added and some existing information was revised. These actions explain why some 2005 literature citations

appear in a document with a July 2004 publication date.

Species Names: The NEFSC Editorial Office’s policy on the use of species names in all technical communications is

generally to follow the American Fisheries Society’s lists of scientific and common names for fishes (i.e., Robins et al.

1991aa

,bb) mollusks (i.e., Turgeon et al. 1998c), and decapod crustaceans (i.e., Williams et al. 1989d), and to follow the

Society for Marine Mammalogy's guidance on scientific and common names for marine mammals (i.e., Rice 1998e).

Exceptions to this policy occur when there are subsequent compelling revisions in the classifications of species, resulting

in changes in the names of species (e.g., Cooper and Chapleau 1998f, McEachran and Dunn 1998g).

Internet Availability: This issue of the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE series is being copublished, i.e., as

both a paper and Web document. The Web document, which will be in HTML (and thus searchable) and PDF formats,

can be accessed at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/tm/tm183.

a

Robins, C.R. (chair); Bailey, R.M.; Bond, C.E.; Brooker, J.R.; Lachner, E.A.; Lea, R.N.; Scott, W.B. 1991. Common and scientific names

of fishes from the United States and Canada. 5th ed. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 20; 183 p.

b

Robins, C.R. (chair); Bailey, R.M.; Bond, C.E.; Brooker, J.R.; Lachner, E.A.; Lea, R.N.; Scott, W.B. 1991. World fishes important to

North Americans. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 21; 243 p.

c

Turgeon, D.D. (chair); Quinn, J.F., Jr.; Bogan, A.E.; Coan, E.V.; Hochberg, F.G.; Lyons, W.G.; Mikkelsen, P.M.; Neves, R.J.; Roper, C.F.E.;

Rosenberg, G.; Roth, B.; Scheltema, A.; Thompson, F.G.; Vecchione, M.; Williams, J.D. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic

invertebrates from the United States and Canada: mollusks. 2nd ed. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 26; 526 p.

d

Williams, A.B. (chair); Abele, L.G.; Felder, D.L.; Hobbs, H.H., Jr.; Manning, R.B.; McLaughlin, P.A.; Pérez Farfante, I. 1989. Common

and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: decapod crustaceans. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 17;

77 p.

e

Rice, D.W. 1998. Marine mammals of the world: systematics and distribution. Soc. Mar. Mammal. Spec. Publ. 4; 231 p.

f

Cooper, J.A.; Chapleau, F. 1998. Monophyly and interrelationships of the family Pleuronectidae (Pleuronectiformes), with a revised

classification. Fish. Bull. (Washington, DC) 96:686-726.

g

McEachran, J.D.; Dunn, K.A. 1998. Phylogenetic analysis of skates, a morphologically conservative clade of elasmobranchs

(Chondrichthyes: Rajidae). Copeia 1998(2):271-290.
Contents

Introduction...................................................................................................................................................... 1 

LME Description ............................................................................................................................................. 1 

 Definition................................................................................................................................................... 1 

 Delineation and Major Stressors ............................................................................................................... 3 

 Monitoring and Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 3 

LME Indicator Modules................................................................................................................................... 3 

 Productivity Module Indicators................................................................................................................. 4 

 Fish and Fisheries Module Indicators........................................................................................................ 5 

 Pollution and Ecosystem Health Module Indicators ................................................................................. 5 

 Socioeconomic Module Indicators............................................................................................................ 5 

 Governance Module Indicators ................................................................................................................. 6 

Application of Indicator Modules to LME Management................................................................................. 6 

 Establishment of the Global Environment Facility ................................................................................... 6 

 Science-Based Assessments of LME Biomass Yields .............................................................................. 7

 Recovering Fisheries Biomass .................................................................................................................. 7 

 Eutrophication and Nitrogen Overenrichment .......................................................................................... 9 

A Way Forward: The GEF-LME Project Approach to Management ............................................................ 10 

LME Modeling Contributes to Policy-Making.............................................................................................. 12 

 LME Approach to World Summit Targets.............................................................................................. 12 

References Cited ............................................................................................................................................ 14 

Figures

Figure 1. LMEs correspond to natural features ........................................................................................... 1 

Figure 2. Global map showing 64 LMEs and linked watersheds ................................................................ 2 

Figure 3. Global map showing 64 LMEs and their estimated average annual primary productivity .......... 2 

Figure 4. A simple set of scale relations for the pelagic food web.............................................................. 3 

Figure 5. LME modules as suites of condition indicators ........................................................................... 4 

Figure 6. Example of multijurisdictional LME governance ........................................................................ 6 

Figure 7. Decadal trends in biomass yields of the six candidate LMEs for precautionary approach actions 

to preclude total fish biomass reductions ..................................................................................... 8

Figure 8. Increase in biomass of Georges Bank yellowtail flounder and haddock following reduction in 

fishing effort................................................................................................................................. 9 

Figure 9. Comparison of total nitrogen fluxes from select LME watersheds ............................................ 10 

Figure 10. Model-predicted dissolved inorganic nitrogen export by rivers to coastal systems in 1990 and 

2050............................................................................................................................................ 11 

Figure 11. Large Marine Ecosystems Program planning and implementation process and schedule ......... 13 

Tables

Table 1. Published studies and volumes on LMEs................................................................................ 18 

Table 2. Primary and secondary driving forces of biomass yields for 29 LMEs .................................. 19 

Table 3. Reported 1999 annual fisheries biomass yields of LMEs where stewardship ministries are 

implementing or planning GEF-LME projects........................................................................ 20 

Table 4. The 121 countries participating in GEF-LME projects........................................................... 21 

Page iii
Acronyms 

FAO = UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization 

GEF = UN’s Global Environment Facility 

IOC = UN’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission 

IUCN = International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources; 

also known as World Conservation Union 

LME = large marine ecosystem 

NERRS = NOAA’s National Estuarine Research Reserve System 

NOAA = US Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

SAP = strategic action plan 

TDA = transboundary diagnostic analysis 

UN = United Nations 

UNDP = UN Development Program 

UNEP = UN Environment Program 

UNCED = 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development 

WSSD = 2004 World Summit on Sustainable Development 

Page iv
Page 1

INTRODUCTION

Since 1984, the NOAA Fisheries Service’s Large

Marine Ecosystems (LME) Program has been engaged in

the development and implementation of an ecosystembased approach to support assessment and management of

marine resources and habitats. Five linked program

modules have been developed for introducing the LME

approach: productivity, fish and fisheries, pollution and

ecosystem health, socioeconomics, and governance.

Taken together, these modules provide time-series

measurements used to support actions for the recovery,

sustainability, and management of marine resources and

habitats. The 10 LMEs of the United States are the

Northeast Shelf, Southeast Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, California

Current, Gulf of Alaska, East Bering Sea, Beaufort Sea,

Chukchi Sea, Insular Pacific-Hawaii, and Caribbean Sea

(Figure 1).

A global effort is underway by NOAA in partnership

with the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the UN’s

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), and

other UN agencies to improve the long-term sustainability

of resources and environments of the world’s 64 LMEs and

linked watersheds. Scientific and technical assistance is

provided to developing countries committed to policies

and actions for eliminating transboundary environmental

and resource-use practices that lead to serious degradation

of coastal environments and their linked watersheds, and

to losses in biodiversity and food security.

LME DESCRIPTION

DEFINITION

LMEs are natural regions of ocean space encompassing coastal waters from river basins and estuaries to the

seaward boundary of continental shelves and the outer

margins of coastal currents. They are relatively large

regions of 200,000 km2

 or greater, the natural boundaries of

which are based on four ecological criteria: bathymetry,

hydrography, productivity, and trophically related populations.

The theory, measurement, and modeling relevant to

monitoring the changing states of LMEs are imbedded in

reports on ecosystems with multiple steady states, and on

the pattern formation and spatial diffusion within

ecosystems (Holling 1973, 1986, 1993; Pimm 1984; Sherman

and Alexander 1986, 1989; Sherman et al. 1990; Beddington

1986; Mangel 1991; Levin 1993). The concept that critical

processes controlling the structure and function of

biological communities can best be addressed on a regional

Figure 1. LMEs correspond to natural features. (The 10 LMEs of the United States are regions of the ocean starting in coastal areas and

extending out to the seaward boundaries of continental shelves and major current systems. They take into account the biological

and physical components of the marine environment as well as terrestrial features such as river basins and estuaries that drain

into these ocean areas. From the final report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (USCOP 2004).)
Page 2

Figure 2. Global map showing 64 LMEs and linked watersheds.

Figure 3. Global map showing 64 LMEs and their estimated average annual primary productivity. (Estimates are based on SeaWIFS

satellite data collected between September 1998 and August 1999, and the model developed by Behrenfeld and Falkowski

(1997). The color-enhanced image (provided by courtesy of Rutgers University) depicts a shaded gradient of primary productivity from a high of 450 gCm-2yr-1 in red to <45 gCm-2yr-1 in purple.)

1. East Bering Sea

2. Gulf of Alaska

3. California Current

4. Gulf of California

5. Gulf of Mexico

6. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf

7. Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf

8. Scotian Shelf

9. Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

10. Insular Pacific-Hawaiian

11. Pacific Central-American

12. Caribbean Sea

13. Humboldt Current

14. Patagonian Shelf

15. South Brazil Shelf

16. East Brazil Shelf

17. North Brazil Shelf

18. West Greenland Shelf

19. East Greenland Shelf

20. Barents Sea

21. Norwegian Sea

22. North Sea

23. Baltic Sea

24. Celtic-Biscay Shelf

25. Iberian Coastal

26. Mediterranean

27. Canary Current

28. Guinea Current

29. Benguela Current

30. Agulhas Current

31. Somali Coastal Current

32. Arabian Sea

33. Red Sea

34. Bay of Bengal

35. Gulf of Thailand

36. South China Sea

37. Sulu-Celebes Sea

38. Indonesian Sea

39. North Australia

40. Northeast Australia

41. East-Central Australia

42. Southeast Australia

43. Southwest Australia

44. West-Central Australia

45. Northwest Australia

46. New Zealand Shelf

47. East China Sea

48. Yellow Sea

49. Kuroshio Current

50. Sea of Japan

51. Oyashio Current

52. Sea of Okhotsk

53. West Bering Sea

54. Chukchi Sea

55. Beaufort Sea

56. East Siberian Sea

57. Laptev Sea

58. Kara Sea

59. Iceland Shelf

60. Faroe Plateau

61. Antarctic

62. Black Sea

63. Hudson Bay

64. Arctic Ocean
Page 3

basis (Ricklefs 1987) has been applied to the ocean by

using LMEs as the distinct units for marine resources

assessment, monitoring, and management. In turn, the

concept of assessment, monitoring, and management of

marine resources from an LME perspective has been the

topic of a series of ongoing national and international

studies, symposia case studies, and workshops initiated in

1984; in each instance, the geographic extent of the LME

has been defined on the basis of bathymetry, hydrography,

productivity, and trophodynamics. A list of peer-reviewed

published volumes of LME case studies is given in Table 1.

DELINEATION AND MAJOR STRESSORS

Within the geographic limits of LMEs, domains or

subsystems can be defined. For example, the Adriatic Sea

is a subsystem of the Mediterranean Sea LME. In other

LMEs, geographic limits are defined by the character of

continental shelves. Among these are the U.S. Northeast

Continental Shelf and its four subsystems -- Gulf of

Maine, Georges Bank, Southern New England, and MidAtlantic Bight (Sherman et al. 1988, 1998). Other examples

of continental shelf LMEs are the Icelandic Shelf, Yellow

Sea, East Bering Sea, North Sea, and Barents Sea. For

LMEs with narrow shelf areas and well-defined currents,

the LMEs are bounded by the outer margins of the major

coastal currents. The Humboldt Current, California

Current, Canary Current, Kuroshio Current, and Benguela

Current are examples of coastal current LMEs.

The areas of the world most stressed from habitat

degradation, pollution, and overexploitation of marine

resources are the coastal ecosystems. Ninety percent of

the usable annual global biomass yield of fish and other

living marine resources is produced in 64 LMEs (Figure 2)

identified within, and in some cases extending beyond, the

boundaries of the exclusive economic zones of coastal

nations located around the margins of the ocean basins

(Sherman 1994; Garibaldi and Limongelli 2003). Levels of

primary production are persistently higher around the

margins of the ocean basins than in the open-ocean pelagic

areas (Figure 3). High population density characterizes

these coastal ocean areas and contributes to the pollution

that has its greatest impact on natural productivity cycles

through eutrophication from high levels of nitrogen and

phosphorus effluent from estuaries. Toxins in poorly

treated sewage discharge, harmful algal blooms, and loss of

wetland nursery areas to coastal development are

ecosystem-level problems that also need to be addressed

(GESAMP 1990).

MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

Temporal and spatial scales influencing biological

production and changing ecological states in marine

ecosystems have been the topic of a number of theoretical

and empirical studies. The selection of scale in any study is

related to the processes under investigation. An excellent

treatment of this topic can be found in Steele (1988). Steele

indicates that in relation to the general ecology of the sea,

the best-known models in marine population dynamics

include those by Schaefer (1954) and Beverton and Holt

(1957), following the earlier pioneering approach of

Lindemann (1942). However, as noted by Steele (1988), this

array of models is unsuitable for dealing with temporal or

spatial variability in the ocean. A heuristic projection was

produced by Steele (1988) to illustrate scales and

ecosystem indicators of importance in monitoring pelagic

components of the ecosystem, including phytoplankton,

zooplankton, fish, frontal processes, and short-term but

large-area episodic effects (Figure 4).

A key factor in reaching a determination on the status

of ecosystem condition is the quantitative output from

spatial and temporal time series of indicators of condition in

productivity, fish and fisheries, pollution and ecosystem

health, socioeconomics, and governance. Advances in

technology now allow for cost-effective measuring of the

changing states of LMEs using suites of indicators,

including those depicted in Figure 5.

LME INDICATOR MODULES

A five-module indicator approach to assessment and

management of LMEs has proven useful in ecosystembased projects in the United States and elsewhere. The

modules are customized for each LME through a

transboundary diagnostic analysis (TDA) process and a

strategic action plan (SAP) development process for the

Figure 4. A simple set of scale relations for the pelagic food web. (P

= phytoplankton, Z = zooplankton, F = fish, MM = marine

mammals, B = birds, X = predictable fronts with small

cross-front dimensions, and Y= weather events occurring

over relatively large scales. Adapted from Steele (1988).)
Page 4

groups of nations or states sharing an LME. These

processes are critical for integrating science into

management in a practical way, and for establishing

appropriate governance regimes.

Of the five modules, three are science-based indicators

that focus on productivity, fish/fisheries, and pollution/

ecosystem health. The other two modules, socioeconomics

and governance, support the development of indicators

that improve measures of economic benefits to be derived

from a more sustainable resource use, as well as advance

legal and administrative support for ecosystem-based

management practices. The first four modules support the

TDA process, while the governance module is associated

with periodic updating of the SAP development process.

Adaptive management regimes are encouraged through

periodic assessment processes (i.e., TDA updates) and

through updating the action plans as gaps are filled (Wang

2004).

PRODUCTIVITY MODULE INDICATORS

Primary productivity can be related to the carrying

capacity of an ecosystem for supporting fish resources

(Pauly and Christensen 1995). It has been reported that the

maximum global level of primary productivity for

supporting the average annual world catch of fisheries has

been reached, and that further large-scale unmanaged

increases in fisheries yields from marine ecosystems are

likely to be at trophic levels below fish in the marine food

web (Beddington 1995).

Measurements of ecosystem productivity can be

useful indicators of the growing problem of coastal

eutrophication. In several LMEs, excessive nutrient

loadings of coastal waters have been related to algal

blooms implicated in mass mortalities of living resources,

emergence of pathogens (e.g., cholera, vibrios, red tides,

and paralytic shellfish toxins), and explosive growth of

nonindigenous species (Epstein 1993).

The ecosystem parameters measured and used as

indicators of changing conditions in the productivity

module are zooplankton biodiversity and species composition, zooplankton biomass, water-column structure, photosynthetically active radiation, transparency, chlorophyll-a,

nitrite, nitrate, and primary production. Plankton inhabiting

LMEs have been measured over decadal time scales by

deploying continuous plankton recorder systems monthly

across ecosystems from commercial vessels of opportunity. Advanced plankton recorders can be fitted with

sensors for temperature, salinity, chlorophyll, nitrate/

nitrite, petroleum, hydrocarbons, light, bioluminescence,

and primary productivity, providing the means for in-situ

monitoring and for calibrating satellite-derived oceanographic data. Properly calibrated satellite data can provide

information on ecosystem conditions including physical

state (i.e., surface temperature), nutrient characteristics,

Figure 5. LME modules as suites of condition indicators.
Page 5

primary productivity, and phytoplankton species composition (Berman and Sherman 2001; Aiken et al. 1999).

FISH AND FISHERIES MODULE INDICATORS

Changes in biodiversity and species dominance within

fish communities of LMEs have resulted from excessive

exploitation, naturally occurring environmental shifts due

to climate change, and coastal pollution. Changes in

biodiversity and species dominance in a fish community

can cascade up the food web to apex predators and down

the food web to plankton components of the ecosystem.

The fish and fisheries module includes both fisheriesindependent bottom-trawl surveys and pelagic-species

acoustic surveys to obtain time-series information on changes

in fish biodiversity and abundance levels. Standardized

sampling procedures, when employed from small calibrated

trawlers, can provide important information on changes in fish

species (Sherman 1993). Fish catch provides biological

samples for stock identification, stomach content analyses,

age-growth relationships, fecundity, and coastal pollution

monitoring for possibly associated pathological conditions,

as well as data for preparing stock assessments and for

clarifying and quantifying multispecies trophic relationships.

The survey vessels can also be used as platforms for

obtaining water, sediment, and benthic samples for monitoring

harmful algal blooms, diseases, anoxia, and changes in benthic

communities.

POLLUTION AND ECOSYSTEM HEALTH MODULE

INDICATORS

In several LMEs, pollution and eutrophication have

been important driving forces of change in biomass yields.

Assessing the changing status of pollution and health of

an entire LME is scientifically challenging. Ecosystem

health is a concept of wide interest for which a single

precise scientific definition is difficult. The health

paradigm is based on multiple-state comparisons of

ecosystem resilience and stability, and is an evolving

concept that has been the subject of a number of meetings

(Sherman 1993). To be healthy and sustainable, an

ecosystem must maintain its metabolic activity level and its

internal structure and organization, and must resist external

stress over time and space scales relevant to the ecosystem

(Costanza 1992).

The pollution and ecosystem health module measures

pollution effects on the ecosystem through the bivalve

mollusk monitoring strategy of the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency’s Mussel-Watch Program, through the

pathobiological examination of fish, through the estuarine

and nearshore monitoring of contaminants and contaminant effects in the water column, substrate, and selected

groups of organisms, and through similar efforts. Where

possible, bioaccumulation and trophic transfer of contaminants are assessed, and critical life history stages and

selected food web organisms are examined for indicators of

exposure to, and effects from, contaminants. Effects of

impaired reproductive capacity, organ disease, and

impaired growth from contaminants are measured.

Assessments are made of contaminant impacts at both

species and population levels. Implementation of

protocols to assess the frequency and effect of harmful

algal blooms, emergent diseases, and multiple marine

ecological disturbances (Sherman 2000) are included in the

pollution module.

In the United States, the EPA has developed a suite of

five coastal condition indices -- water quality, sediment

quality, benthic communities, coastal habitat, and fish

tissue contaminants -- as part of an ongoing collaborative

effort with NOAA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the

U.S. Geological Survey, and other agencies representing

states and tribes. The 2004 report, “National Coastal

Condition Report II,” includes results from EPA’s analyses

of coastal condition indicators and NOAA’s fish stock

assessments by LMEs aligned with EPA’s national coastal

assessment regions (USEPA 2001, 2004).

SOCIOECONOMIC MODULE INDICATORS

This module emphasizes the practical application of

scientific findings to managing LMEs, and the explicit

integration of social and economic indicators and analyses

with all other scientific assessments, to assure that

prospective management measures are cost-effective.

Economists and policy analysts work closely with

ecologists and other scientists to identify and evaluate

management options that are both scientifically credible

and economically practical with regard to the use of

ecosystem goods and services.

In order to respond adaptively to enhanced scientific

information, socioeconomic considerations must be

closely integrated with science. This component of the

LME approach to marine resources management has

recently been described as the human dimensions of

LMEs. A framework has been developed by the

Department of Natural Resource Economics at the

University of Rhode Island for monitoring and assessment

of the human dimensions of LMEs, and for incorporating

socioeconomic considerations into an adaptive management approach for LMEs (Sutinen et al. 2000). One of the

more critical considerations, a method for economic

valuations of LME goods and services, has been developed

using framework matrices for ecological states and economic

consequences of change (Hoagland et al. 2004).

GOVERNANCE MODULE INDICATORS

The governance module is evolving, based on

demonstration projects now underway in several ecosys-
Page 6

tems, such that ecosystems will be managed more

holistically than in the past. In LME assessment and

management projects supported by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for the Yellow Sea, Guinea Current, and

Benguela Current LMEs, agreements have been reached

among the environmental ministers of the countries

bordering these LMEs to enter into joint resource

assessment and management activities. Elsewhere, the

Great Barrier Reef and Antarctic LMEs are also being

managed from an ecosystem perspective, the latter under

the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine

Living Resources.

Governance profiles of LMEs are being explored to

determine their utility in promoting long-term sustainability

of ecosystem resources (Juda and Hennessey 2001). In

each of the LMEs, governance jurisdiction can be scaled to

ensure conformance with existing legislated mandates and

authorities. An example of multiple governance-related

jurisdictions is shown in Figure 6.

APPLICATION OF INDICATOR MODULES

TO LME MANAGEMENT

Indicator data derived from spatial and temporal

applications of the five modules are being applied by a

growing number of nations in the assessment and

management of LMEs with the financial assistance of the

Global Environment Facility. Among the stressors

affecting the sustainability of LMEs are the growing

problem of coastal eutrophication, and the depletion of fish

and fishery resources and biomass yields.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

FACILITY

Continued overfishing in the face of scientific

warnings, fishing down food webs, destruction of habitat,

and accelerated pollution loading, especially nitrogen

Figure 6. Example of multijurisdictional LME governance. (Included are: 1) jurisdictions covered by the New England and Mid-Atlantic

Fishery Management Councils; 2) LME subareas; 3) marine protected areas and the boundaries of the Stellwagen Bank National

Marine Sanctuary; 4) near-coastal areas assessed for “condition” determinations by the EPA; and 5) locations of National

Estuarine Research Reserve Sites (NERRS).)
Page 7

export, have resulted in significant degradation to coastal

and marine ecosystems of both rich and poor nations.

Fragmentation among institutions, international agencies,

and disciplines, lack of cooperation among nations sharing

marine ecosystems, and weak national policies, legislation,

and enforcement all contribute to the need for a new

imperative for adopting ecosystem-based approaches to

managing human activities in these systems in order to

avoid serious social and economic disruption.

Following a 3-yr pilot phase (1991-1994), the Global

Environment Facility was formally launched to forge

cooperation and to finance actions in the context of

sustainable development -- actions that address critical

threats to the global environment from biodiversity loss,

climate change, degradation of international waters, ozone

depletion, and persistent organic pollutants. Activities

concerning land degradation, primarily desertification and

deforestation as they relate to these threats, are also

addressed. GEF-LME projects are implemented by the UN

Development Program (UNDP), UN Environment Program

(UNEP), and World Bank. Expanded opportunities exist for

participation by other agencies.

SCIENCE-BASED ASSESSMENTS

OF LME BIOMASS YIELDS

The growing awareness that biomass yields are being

influenced by multiple driving forces has broadened

monitoring strategies to encompass food chain dynamics

and the effects of environmental perturbations and

pollution on living marine resources from an ecosystem

perspective. To assist stewardship agencies in implementing ecosystem-based assessment and management practices, TDAs are being focused on the root causes of trends

in LME biomass yields. In addition, information on

principal driving forces of biomass yields from 29 LME case

studies by marine resource experts has been analyzed. A

list of the principal investigators, constituting the expertsystems analyses, appearing in 12 peer-reviewed and

published LME volumes, is given in Table 1. The biomass

yields in Table 2 are based largely on the mid-point value

(i.e., 1995) of LME yields compiled by FAO for 1990-1999

(Garibaldi and Limongelli 2003). Biomass yield data for

three LMEs not included in the FAO report were taken from

published LME case studies, and are based on the midpoint value for other periods of time.

Based on the expert systems analyses, principal and

secondary driving forces were assigned to each LME using

four categories (climate, fisheries, eutrophication, and

inconclusive) as seen in Table 2. Of the 29 LME case

studies, 13 were assigned to climate forcing as the principal

driver of change in biomass yield, 14 were assigned to

fishing as principal driver, one was assigned to

eutrophication, and the remaining one was deemed

inconclusive. In all but three of the 29 LMEs, fishing and

climate accounted for all of the primary and secondary

drivers. Eutrophication was the principal driver in the Black

Sea LME, and was the secondary driver in the

Mediterranean and Baltic Seas LMEs.

The contribution of the 29 LMEs to the annual global

biomass yields amounts to 54.4 million metric tons (mmt), or

64% of the total, based on the average annual global

biomass yield from 1995 to 1999 of 85 mmt (Garibaldi and

Limongelli 2003). It would appear that the management

regime for nearly half of this yield from the 29 case-study

LMEs (27.0 mmt) will need to focus primarily on the climate

signal and secondarily on catch control, whereas the

management regime for slightly less of this yield (24.8 mmt)

will need to focus primarily on catch control and secondarily

on the climate signal, to recover depleted fish stocks and

achieve maximum sustainable yield levels (Table 3).

The influence of climate forcing in biomass yields for

the California Current LME has been analyzed and

illustrated by Lluch-Belda et al. (2003). Evidence of climate

forcing for the Humboldt Current LME has been given by

Wolff et al. (2003), and for the Iceland Shelf LME by

Astthorsson and Vilhjálmsson (2002). In contrast, the

argument for urgent reduction in fishing effort is supported

by the data in Sherman et al. (2003) for the U.S. Northeast

Shelf LME, and by the expert analysis of Pauly and

Chuenpagdee (2003) for the Gulf of Thailand.

The observation that excessive fishing effort can alter

the structure of the ecosystem, resulting in a shift from

relatively high-priced, large-sized, long-lived, demersal

species, down the food chain toward lower-valued, smallersized, shorter-lived, pelagic species (Pauly and Christensen

1995), is supported by the LME data on species biomass

yields. Evidence from the East China Sea, Yellow Sea, and

Gulf of Thailand suggests that these three LMEs are

approaching a critical state of change, wherein recovery to

a previous ratio of demersal-to-pelagic species may

become problematic. In all three cases, the fisheries are

now being directed toward fish protein being provided by

catches of smaller-sized species of low value (Chen and

Shen 1999; Pauly and Chuenpagdee 2003; Tang 2003).

The species change in biomass yields of the Yellow

Sea, as shown in Figure 10 in Tang (2003), represents an

extreme case wherein the annual demersal species biomass

yield was reduced from 200,000 mt in 1955 to less than

25,000 mt through 1980. The fisheries then targeted the

pelagic anchovy, and between 1990 and 1995, landings of

anchovy reached an historic high of 500,000 mt.

RECOVERING FISHERIES BIOMASS

The GEF-LME projects presently funded or in the

pipeline for funding in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and

eastern Europe represent a growing network of marine

scientists, marine managers, and ministerial leaders who are

pursuing ecosystem and fishery recovery goals. The
Page 8

annual fisheries biomass yields from the ecosystems in the

network are significant at 44.8% of the global total (Table

3), and are a firm basis for moving toward the goals of the

2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD)

for introducing an ecosystem-based assessment and

management approach to global fisheries by 2010, and for

achieving fishing at maximum sustainable yield (MSY)

levels by 2015.

The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishery

Practice (FAO 2002) is supported by most coastal nations,

and has immediate applicability to reaching the WSSD

fishery goals. The code argues for moving forward with a

precautionary approach to fisheries sustainability, using

available information in a more conservative approach to

total allowable catch levels than has been the general

practice in past decades. Based on Garibaldi and

Limongelli (2003), it appears that the biomass and yields of

11 species groups in six LMEs have been relatively stable

or have shown marginal increases over the 1990-1999

period. The yield for these six LMEs – the Arabian Sea, Bay

of Bengal, Indonesian Sea, North Brazil Shelf, Mediterranean Sea and the Sulu-Celebes Sea -- was 8.1 mmt, or 9.5 %

of the global marine fisheries yield in 1999 (Figure 7). The

countries bordering these six LMEs are among the world’s

Figure 7. Decadal trends (1990-1999) in biomass yields (mmt) of the six candidate LMEs for precautionary approach actions to preclude

total fish biomass reductions. (Value after LME name represents 1999 biomass yield level. Data are based on FAO statistics,

as reported to the FAO by official national sources, in Garibaldi and Limongelli (2003). Unfortunately, fisheries effort data are

not available for trend analyses. Reproduced with permission from FAO.)
Page 9

most populous, representing approximately one-quarter of

the total human population. These LME border countries

increasingly depend on marine fisheries for food security

and for national and international trade. In the absence of

national reporting of effort data for catches in these six

LMEs, and given the risks of fishing-down-the-food-chain,

it would appear opportune for the stewardship agencies

responsible for the fisheries of the LME-bordering

countries to mandate precautionary total allowable catch

levels.

Evidence for species biomass recovery following

significant reduction in fishing effort through mandated

actions is encouraging. In the U.S. Northeast Shelf LME,

management actions to reduce fishing effort, combined

with the robust condition of primary productivity

(350 gCm-2 yr-1), stable zooplankton levels (33 cc/100m3

 ),

and a relatively stable oceanographic regime (Sherman et

al. 2002), contributed to: 1) a relatively rapid recovery of

depleted Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel stocks

(NEFSC 1999), and 2) initiation of the recovery of depleted

yellowtail flounder and haddock stocks following a

mandated 1994 reduction in fishing effort (Figure 8)

(NEFSC 2002). Three LMEs remain at high risk for fisheries

biomass recovery -- expressed as a pre-1960s ratio of

demersal-to-pelagic species -- the Gulf of Thailand, East

China Sea, and Yellow Sea. However, the People’s

Republic of China has initiated recovery by mandating 60-

90 day closures to fishing in the Yellow Sea and East China

Sea during summer months (Tang 2003). The countrydriven planning and implementation documents supporting the ecosystem approach to LME assessment and

management practices can be found at www.iwlearn.org.

EUTROPHICATION AND NITROGEN

OVERENRICHMENT

Nitrogen overenrichment has been reported as a

coastal problem for two decades, from the southeast coast

of the United States (Duda 1982) to the Baltic Sea and other

systems (Helsinki Commission 2001). More recent

estimates of nitrogen export to LMEs from linked

freshwater basins are summarized in Figure 9 [as adapted

from an image provided courtesy of N.A. Jaworski; see

further Jaworski (1999)]. These recent human-induced

increases in nitrogen flux range from 4- to 8-fold in the

United States from the Gulf of Mexico to the New England

coast, while no increase was documented in areas with little

agricultural or few population sources in Canada (Howarth

et al. 2000).

In European LMEs, recent nitrogen flux increases have

been recorded ranging from 3-fold in Spain to 4-fold in the

Baltic Sea to 11-fold in the Rhine River basin draining to the

North Sea LME (Howarth et al. 2000). Duda and El-Ashry

(2000) described the origin of this disruption of the

nitrogen cycle from the Green Revolution of the 1970s as

the world community converted wetlands to agriculture,

utilized more chemical inputs, and expanded irrigation to

feed the world. As noted by Duda (1982) for the Southeast

estuaries of the United States and by Rabalais (1999) for the

Gulf of Mexico, much of the large increase in nitrogen

export to LMEs is from agricultural inputs, both from the

increased delivery of fertilizer nitrogen as wetlands were

converted to agriculture and from concentrations of

livestock (Duda and Finan 1983) for eastern North Carolina,

where the increase in nitrogen export over the forested

areas ranged from 20- to 500-fold in the late 1970s.

Industrialized livestock production during the last two

decades increases the flux, the eutrophication, and the

oxygen depletion even more as reported by the National

Research Council (NRC 2000). The latest GESAMP

assessment (GESAMP 2001) also identifies as significant

contributors to eutrophication both sewage from drainages from large cities and atmospheric deposition from

automobiles and agricultural activities, with the amounts

depending on proximity of sources.

GEF is being asked more frequently by countries to

help support the agreed-upon incremental cost of actions

to reduce such nitrogen flux. Actions range from assisting

in: 1) development of joint institutions for ecosystembased approaches for adaptive management described in

Figure 8. Increase in biomass (spawning stock) of Georges Bank

yellowtail flounder and haddock following reduction in

fishing effort (exploitation rate). (Information is taken

from NEFSC (2002).)
Page 10

this document; 2) on-the-ground implementation of

nitrogen abatement measures in the agricultural, industrial,

and municipal sectors; and 3) breaching of floodplain dikes

so that wetlands recently converted to agriculture may be

reconverted to promote nitrogen assimilation. The

excessive levels of nitrogen contributing to coastal

eutrophication constitute a new global environment

problem that is cross-sectoral in nature. Excessive nitrogen

loadings have been identified as problems in the following

LMEs that are receiving GEF assistance: Baltic Sea, Black

Sea, Adriatic portion of the Mediterranean, Yellow Sea,

South China Sea, Bay of Bengal, Gulf of Mexico, and Plata

Maritime Front/Patagonia Shelf.

In fact, preliminary global estimates of nitrogen export

from freshwater basins to coastal waters were assembled

by Seitzinger and Kroeze (1998). Their model predicts a

doubling of nitrogen to coastal waters by 2050. Included as

Figure 10 and adapted from an image provided courtesy of

S.P. Seitzinger [see further Kroeze and Seitzinger (1998)],

these preliminary estimates of global freshwater basin

nitrogen export are alarming for the future sustainability of

LMEs. Given the expected future increases in population

and in fertilizer use, without significant nitrogen mitigation

efforts, LMEs will be subjected to a future of increasing

harmful algal bloom events, reduced fisheries, and hypoxia

that further degrades marine biomass and biological diversity.

Figure 9. Comparison of total nitrogen fluxes from select LME watersheds. (Adapted from an image provided courtesy of N.A.

Jaworski; see further Jaworski (1999).)

A WAY FORWARD:

THE GEF- LME PROJECT APPROACH

TO MANAGEMENT

The only new funding source to emerge from the UN

Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)

held in Brazil in 1992, GEF counts -- as of this publication

date -- 171 countries as members. During its first decade,

GEF allocated $US 3.2 billion in grant financing,

supplemented by more than $US 8 billion in additional

financing, for 800 projects in 156 developing countries and

those in economic transition. All six thematic areas of GEF,

including the land degradation cross-cutting theme, have

implications for coastal and marine ecosystems. Priorities

have been established by the GEF Council in its

Operational Strategy adopted in 1995 (GEF 1995). The

international waters focal area was designed to be

consistent with both Chapter 17 and 18 of Agenda 21 of

UNCED. In 1995, the GEF Council included the concept of

LMEs in its Operational Strategy as a vehicle for promoting

ecosystem-based management of coastal and marine

resources in the international waters focal area within a

framework of sustainable development. The Report of the

Second Meeting of the UN Informal, Open-ended Consultative Process on Ocean Affairs (UNGA 2001), which was

related to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,

Comparison of TN Fluxes

437

1388

1068

1033

720

617

653

1223

653

150

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Gulf of

Maine

S New

England

Mid Atlantic Total NE

LME

S East LME Gulf of

Mexico

Baltic Sea North Sea Mississippi St Lawrence

LME/Area

kg/km2/yr
Page 11

recognized the contribution of GEF in addressing LMEs

through its science-based and ecosystem-based approach.

The geographic area of the LME, its coastal area, and

contributing basins constitute the place-based area for

assisting countries to understand linkages among root

causes of degradation and for integrating needed changes

in sectoral economic activities. The LME areas serve to

initiate capacity building and to bring science into

pragmatic use in improving the management of coastal and

marine ecosystems. The GEF Operational Strategy

recommends that nations sharing an LME begin to address

coastal and marine issues by jointly undertaking strategic

processes for analyzing factual scientific information on

transboundary problems and their root causes, and for

setting priorities for action. The transboundary diagnostic

analysis process provides a useful mechanism to foster

participation at all levels. Countries then determine the

national and regional policy, legal, and institutional reforms

and investments needed to address the priorities in the

strategic action plan. This approach allows sound science

to become the basis for policy-making, and establishes a

geographic location upon which an ecosystem-based

approach to assessment and management can be

developed. More importantly, these projects engage

stakeholders in dialogue that results in their practical

support within the geographic area for implementing an

ecosystem-based approach. Without such participative

processes to engage specific stakeholders in a place-based

setting, marine science has often remained confined to the

marine science community or has not been embraced in

policy-making. Furthermore, the science-based approach

encourages transparency through joint monitoring, including

joint survey cruises, and joint assessment processes for

countries sharing an LME, building trust among nations and

overcoming any sense that false information is being reported.

Both developing countries and those in economic

transition have requested and received GEF support for

LME projects through GEF’s international waters focal

area. The approved GEF-LME projects include not only

developing nations and those in economic transition, but

also the developed countries of the Organization for

Economic Cooperation and Development, since living

resources, pollution loading, and critical habitats cross the

borders of rich and poor nations alike. The total of $US 650

million which is currently being invested in the global

network of LME projects, is funded by GEF, other donors,

and national governments. At risk in this global network of

LME projects are renewable goods and services valued at

$US 10.6 trillion per year. A total of 121 countries have

LME projects approved and/or under preparation for

approval by the GEF Council: 70 of the 121 countries are

involved with 10 projects already approved; 63 of the 121

countries are involved with seven projects under

preparation (Table 4).

The GEF’s LME projects are generally funded for an

initial 3-5 yr phase, followed for successful projects by a

second 3-5 yr grant. The two phases result in a 6-10 yr

window for participating countries to establish a selffinanced, comprehensive, ecosystem-based assessment

and management system. The five-module assessment and

management methodology is being tested by countries

moving toward adopting practical joint governance

institutions through place-based management. This LME

approach engages stakeholders, fosters the participation

of the science community, and leads to the development of

adaptive management institutions.

The GEF-supported processes in LME projects foster

learning-by-doing and capacity building just as enabling

activities do in other GEF focal areas. These processes

allow the science community to become engaged and

provide interim outputs that serve as vehicles for

stimulating stakeholder participation. These processes

foster cross-sectoral integration so that an ecosystembased approach to improving management institutions

may be pursued. The LME approach provides a framework

for those involved in integrated coastal management, as

well as those addressing land-based sources of pollution

and freshwater basin management, to be integrated into

priority setting. This process builds confidence among

different sectoral interests in a country by establishing a

national GEF interministerial committee, and then among

participating countries sharing the LME by establishing a

multisectoral, intergovernmental, GEF project steering

committee. Producing the SAP facilitates development of

country-driven, politically-agreed ways ahead for commitments to action that address the priorities, in a framework

that encourages adaptive management. This shared

commitment and vision for action has proven essential in

GEF projects that have completed the processes in

securing commitments for policy, legal, and institutional

Figure 10. Model-predicted dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN)

export by rivers to coastal systems in 1990 and 2050.

(Predictions are based on a business-as-usual (BAU)

scenario. Adapted from an image provided courtesy of

S.P. Seitzinger; see further Kroeze and Seitzinger (1998).)
Page 12

reforms in different economic sectors. GEF may then fund

an implementation project to assist countries in addressing

the country-driven priorities for reform and investments.

LME MODELING

CONTRIBUTES TO POLICY-MAKING

Empirical and theoretical aspects of yield models for

LMEs have been reviewed by several ecologists.

According to Beddington (1986), Daan (1986), Levin (1990),

and Mangel (1991), published dynamic models of marine

ecosystems offer little guidance on the detailed behavior of

communities. However, these authors concur on the need

for covering the common ground between observation and

theory by implementing monitoring efforts on the large

spatial and long temporal scales (decadal) of key

components of the LMEs.

The sequence for improving the understanding of the

possible mechanisms underlying observed patterns in LMEs

is described by Levin (1990) as: 1) examination of statistical

analyses of observed distributional patterns of physical and

biological variables, 2) construction of competing models of

variability and patchiness based on statistical analyses and

natural scales of variability of critical processes, 3) evaluation

of competing models through experimental and theoretical

studies of component systems, and 4) integration of validated

component models to provide predictive models for

population dynamics and redistribution. The approach

suggested by Levin (1990) is consistent with the observation

by Mangel (1991) that empirical support for the currently used

models of LMEs is relatively weak, and that a new generation

of models is needed that serves to enhance the linkage

between theory and empirical results.

Three models of ecosystem structure and function are

being applied to LMEs with financial assistance from GEF

through one mid-sized project, “Promoting Ecosystembased Approaches to Fisheries Conservation and LMEs”

(www.gefonline.org/projectList.cfm). Estimates of carrying

capacity using ECOPATH/ECOSIM food web approaches

for the world’s 64 LMEs are being prepared in a

collaboration among scientists of the University of British

Columbia and marine specialists from developing countries. Similarly, a 24-mo training project is being

implemented by scientists from Rutgers University in

collaboration with the IOC to estimate expected nitrogen

loadings for each LME over the next 50 yr. Scientists from

Princeton University are examining particle spectra pattern

formation within LMEs. Additionally, the American

Fisheries Society and the World Council of World

Fisheries Societies are collaborating to create an electronic

network that will expedite information access and

communication among marine specialists participating in

GEF-supported LME projects.

There is a growing awareness among marine scientists,

geographers, economists, government representatives,

and lawyers of the utility of a more holistic ecosystem

approach to resource management (Byrne 1986; Christy

1986; Alexander 1989; Belsky 1989; Crawford et al. 1989;

Morgan 1989; Prescott 1989). On a global scale, the loss of

sustained biomass yields from LMEs from mismanagement

and overexploitation has not been fully investigated, but is

likely very large. Effective management strategies for

LMEs will be contingent on identification of major driving

forces causing large-scale changes in biomass yields.

Management of species responding to strong environmental signals will be enhanced by improving the understanding of the physical factors forcing biological change,

thereby enhancing forecasts of El Niño-type events. In

other LMEs, where the prime driving force is overfishing,

options can be explored for reductions of fishing effort and

implementing adaptive management strategies (Collie

1991). Further, remedial actions are required to ensure that

the pollution of the coastal zone of LMEs is reduced and

does not become a principal driving force in an LME.

Recent reports explore the application of ecosystem-based

research and modeling that are focused on management

(Browman and Stergiou 2004) and on macroecology

(Belgrano 2004; Hoagland et al. 2005; Edwards 2005;

Grigalunas et al. 2005).

LME APPROACH TO WORLD SUMMIT TARGETS

Since 1993, the NOAA Fisheries Service has been

cooperating with GEF, IUCN, IOC, and several other UN

agencies, (i.e., Industrial Development Organization,

UNDP, UNEP, and FAO) to assist developing countries in

planning and implementing ecosystem-based management

focused on LMEs as the principal assessment and

management unit for coastal ocean resources. NOAA

contributes scientific and technical assistance and

expertise to aid developing countries in reaching the

targets of the 2002 WSSD (Duda and Sherman 2002). The

targets, agreed on by officials of more than 100 countries,

call for the achievement of “substantial” reductions in

land-based sources of pollution by 2006, introduction of

the ecosystems approach to marine resource assessment

and management by 2010, designation of a network of

marine protected areas by 2012, and the maintenance and

restoration of fish stocks to MSY levels by 2015.

The GEF-LME strategy supports the WSSD targets for

addressing coastal and marine issues by jointly analyzing

scientific information on transboundary problems and their

root causes, and setting priorities for action on these

problems. The TDA process noted earlier provides a

useful mechanism to foster participation at all levels in this

information analysis and priority-setting effort. Countries

then determine the national and regional policy, legal, and

institutional reforms and investments needed to address

the priorities in a country-driven SAP. Project goals and

milestones of the SAP promote vertical integration across
Page 13

the LME indicator modules on an annual basis, leading to

an adaptive, ultimately self-financing, management regime

(Figure 11).

Reforms are taking place among the participating

countries in operationalizing this ecosystem-based approach to managing human activities in the different

economic sectors that contribute to place-specific

degradation of the LME and adjacent waters. The WSSD

target for introducing ecosystem-based assessment and

management practices by 2010 is likely to be met by most of

the countries constituting the existing LME network. It is

unlikely that the WSSD target for maintaining and restoring

fishery resources to MSY levels by 2015 will be met.

However, progress is being made in recovery of depleted

fish stocks through mandated reductions in fishing effort

(Sherman et al. 2002). With regard to the target for control

and reduction of land-based sources of pollution,

considerable additional effort will be required to achieve

“substantial reductions in land-based sources of pollution

by 2006,” whereas good progress has been made in

designating marine protected areas within the GEF-LME

project network.

The “U.S. Ocean Action Plan” published on 17

December 2004 by the Office of the President, Washington

DC, in response to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s

Final Report (USCOP 2004), supports the LME concept and

strategy for ecosystem-based management within the UN

regional seas programs and by international fisheries

bodies (EOPUS 2004a,b):

Advancing International Oceans Science

Advance the Use of Large Marine Ecosystems. The United

States will promote, within the UN Environment Program’s

regional seas programs and by international fisheries

bodies, the use of the Large Marine Ecosystems (LME)

concept as a tool for enabling ecosystem-based

management to provide a collaborative approach to

management of resources within ecologically bounded

transnational areas. This will be done in an international

context and consistent with customary international law as

reflected in 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Additional information on NOAA’s contributions to

the global LME movement toward ecosystem-based

management and resource sustainability is available from

the LME Program Office, Northeast Fisheries Science

Center, Narragansett Laboratory, Narragansett, RI, and

from the LME website: http://www.lme.noaa.gov.

Figure 11. Large Marine Ecosystems Program planning and implementation process and schedule.
Page 14

REFERENCES CITED

Aiken, J.; Pollard, R.; Williams, R.; Griffiths, G.; Bellan, I.

1999. Measurements of the upper ocean structure

using towed profiling systems. In: Sherman, K.; Tang,

Q., eds. Large marine ecosystems of the Pacific Rim:

assessment, sustainability, and management. Malden,

MA: Blackwell Science; p. 346-362.

Alexander, L.M. 1989. Large marine ecosystems as global

management units. In: Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M.,

eds. Biomass yields and geography of large marine

ecosystems. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Sel. Symp. 111.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press; p. 339-344.

Astthorsson, O.S.; Vilhjálmsson, H. 2002. Iceland Shelf Large

Marine Ecosystem. In: Sherman, K.; Skjoldal, H.R., eds.

Large marine ecosystems of the North Atlantic: changing

states and sustainability. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:

Elsevier Science; p. 219-244.

Beddington, J.R. 1986. Shifts in resource populations in

large marine ecosystems. In: Sherman, K.; Alexander,

L.M., eds. Variability and management of large marine

ecosystems. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Sel. Symp. 99.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press; p. 9-18.

Beddington, J.R. 1995. The primary requirements. Nature

374:213-214.

Behrenfeld, M.; Falkowski, P.G. 1997. Photosynthetic rates

derived from satellite-based chlorophyll concentration. Limnol. Oceangr. 42(1):1-20.

Belgrano, A., coordinator. 2004. Theme section: emergent

properties of complex marine systems: a macroecological

perspective. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 273:227-302.

Belsky, M.H. 1989. The ecosystem model mandate for a

comprehensive United States ocean policy and Law of

the Sea. S. Diego L. Rev. 26(3):417-495.

Berman, M.S.; Sherman, K. 2001. A towed body sampler

for monitoring marine ecosystems. Sea Technol.

42(9):48-52.

Beverton, R.J.H.; Holt, S.J. 1957. On the dynamics of

exploited fish populations. Fish. Invest. Minist. Agric.

Fish. Food (G.B.) Ser. II 19; 533 p.

Browman H.I.; Stergiou, K.I., coordinators. 2004. Theme

section: perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches

to the management of marine resources. Mar. Ecol.

Prog. Ser. 274:269-298.

Byrne, J. 1986. Large marine ecosystems and the future of

ocean studies. In: Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M., eds.

Variability and management of large marine ecosystems. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Sel. Symp. 99. Boulder, CO:

Westview Press; p. 299-308.

Caddy, J.F. 1993. Contrast between recent fishery trends and

evidence for nutrient enrichment in two large marine

ecosystems: the Mediterranean and the Black Seas. In:

Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M.; Gold, B.D., eds. Large

marine ecosystems: stress, mitigation and sustainability.

Washington, DC: AAAS Press; p. 137-147.

Chen, Y.-Q.; Shen, X.-Q. 1999. Changes in the biomass of

the East China Sea Ecosystem. In: Sherman, K.; Tang,

Q., eds. Large marine ecosystems of the Pacific Rim:

assessment, sustainability and management. Malden,

MA: Blackwell Science; p. 221-239.

Christy, F.T. 1986. Can large marine ecosystems be

managed for optimum yields? In: Sherman, K.;

Alexander, L.M., eds. Variability and management of

large marine ecosystems. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Sel.

Symp. 99. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; p. 263-267.

Collie, J.S. 1991. Adaptive strategies for management of

fisheries resources in large marine ecosystems. In:

Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M.; Gold, B.D., eds. Food

chains, yields, models, and management of large

marine ecosystems. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; p.

225-242.

Costanza, R. 1992. Toward an operational definition of

ecosystem health. In: Costanza, R.; Norton, B.G.;

Haskell, B.D., eds. Ecosystem health: new goals for

environmental management. Washington, DC: Island

Press; p. 239-256.

Crawford, R.J.M.; Shannon, L.V.; Shelton, P.A. 1989.

Characteristics and management of the Benguela as a

large marine ecosystem. In: Sherman, K.; Alexander,

L.M., eds. Biomass yields and geography of large

marine ecosystems. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Sel. Symp.

111. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; p. 169-219.

Daan, N. 1986. Results of recent time-series observations

for monitoring trends in large marine ecosystems with

a focus on the North Sea. In: Sherman, K.; Alexander,

L.M., eds. Variability and management of large marine

ecosystems. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Sel. Symp. 99.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press; p. 145-174.

Duda, A.M. 1982. Municipal point sources and

agricultural nonpoint source contributions to coastal

eutrophication. Water Resour. Bull. 18(3):397-407.

Duda, A.M.; El-Ashry, M.T. 2000. Addressing the global

water and environmental crises through integrated

approaches to the management of land, water, and

ecological resources. Water Int. 25:115-126.

Duda, A.M.; Finan, D.S. 1983. Influence of livestock on

nonpoint source nutrient levels of streams. Trans. Am.

Soc. Agric. Eng. 26(6):1710-1726.

Duda, A.; Sherman, K. 2002. A new imperative for

improving management of large marine ecosystems.

Ocean Coast. Manag. 45(2002):797-833.

Edwards, S.F. 2005. Ownership of multi-attribute fishery

resources in large marine ecosystems. Chapter 6 in:

Hennessey, T.; Sutinen, J.G., eds. Sustaining large

marine ecosystems: the human dimension. Amsterdam,

The Netherlands: Elsevier Science; p. 137-154.

EOPUS [Executive Office of the President of the United

States]. 2004a. Executive Order 121704: Committee on

Ocean Policy. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/

releases/2004.
Page 15

EOPUS [Executive Office of the President of the United

States]. 2004b. U.S. Ocean Action Plan (17 December

2004). http://ocean.ceq.gov/actionplan.pdf.

Epstein, P.R. 1993. Algal blooms and public health. World

Resour. Rev. 5(2):190-206.

FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization]. 2002. Code of

conduct for responsible fisheries. www.fao.org/FI/

agreem/codecond/ficonde.asp.

Garibaldi, L.; Limongelli, L. 2003. Trends in oceanic

captures and clustering of large marine ecosystems:

two studies based on the FAO capture database, as

reported to the FAO by official national sources. FAO

Fish. Tech. Pap. 435; 71 p.

GEF [Global Environment Facility]. 1995. GEF operational

strategy. Washington, DC: Global Environment

Facility; 63 p.

GESAMP [Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of

Marine Pollution]. 1990. The state of the marine

environment. UNEP Reg. Seas Rep. Stud. 115; 111 p.

GESAMP [Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of

Marine Pollution]. 2001. Protecting the oceans from

land-based activities: land-based sources and activities affecting the quality and uses of the marine,

coastal and associated freshwater environment.

GESAMP Rep. Stud. 71; 162 p.

Grigalunas, T.A.; Opaluch, J.J.; Diamantides, J.; Woo, D.-S.

2005. Eutrophication in the Northeast Shelf Large

Marine Ecosystem: linking hydrodynamic and economic models for benefit estimation. Chapter 11 in:

Hennessey T.; Sutinen, J., eds. Sustaining large

marine ecosystems: the human dimension. Amsterdam,

The Netherlands: Elsevier; p. 229-248.

Helsinki Commission. 2001. Environment of the Baltic Sea

area 1994–1998. Baltic Sea Environ. Proc. 82A; 23 p.

Hempel, G.; Sherman, K., eds. 2003. Large marine

ecosystems of the world: trends in exploitation, and

research. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier

Science; 423 p.

Hoagland, P.; Jin, D.; Thunberg, E.; Steinback, S. 2005.

Economic activity associated with the Northeast Shelf

Large Marine Ecosystem: application of an inputoutput approach. Chapter 7 in: Hennessey T.;

Sutinen, J., eds. Sustaining large marine ecosystems:

the human dimension. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:

Elsevier; p. 159-181.

Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological

systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4:1-23.

Holling, C.S. 1986. The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems

to local surprise and global change. In: Clark, W.C.;

Munn, R.E., eds. Sustainable development of the

biosphere. London, England: Cambridge Univ. Press;

p. 292-317.

Holling, C.S. 1993. Investing in research for sustainability.

Ecol. Appl. 3:552-555.

Howarth, R.; Anderson, D.; Cloern, J.; Elfring, C.;

Hopkinson, C.; Lapointe, B.; Malone, T.; Marcus, N.;

McGlathery, K.; Sharpley, A.; Walker, D. 2000.

Nutrient pollution of coastal rivers, bays, and seas.

ESA Iss. Ecol. 7:1-15.

Jaworski, N.A. 1999. Comparison of nutrient loadings

and fluxes into the US Northeast Shelf LME with the

Gulf of Mexico and other LMEs. In: Kumpf, H.;

Steidinger, K.; Sherman, K., eds. The Gulf of Mexico

Large Marine Ecosystem: assessment, sustainability,

and management. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science;

p. 360-371.

Juda, L.; Hennessey, T. 2001. Governance profiles and the

management of the uses of large marine ecosystems.

Ocean Dev. Int. Law. 32:41-67.

Kroeze, C.; Seitzinger, S.P. 1998. Nitrogen inputs to rivers,

estuaries and continental shelves and related nitrous

oxide emissions in 1990 and 2050: a global model. Nutr.

Cycl. Agroecosys. 52:195-212.

Kumpf, H.; Steidinger, K.; Sherman, K., editors. 1996. The

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem: assessment,

sustainability, and management. Malden, MA:

Blackwell Science; 704 p.

Kusnetsov, V.V.; Shuntov, V.P.; Borets, L.A. 1993. Food

chains, physical dynamics, perturbations, and biomass yields of the Sea of Okhotsk. In: Sherman, K.;

Alexander, L.M.; Gold, B.D., eds. Large marine

ecosystems: stress, mitigation and sustainability.

Washington, DC: AAAS Press; p. 69-78.

Levin, S.A. 1990. Physical and biological scales, and

modelling of predator-prey interactions in large marine

ecosystems. In: Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M.; Gold,

B.D., eds. Large marine ecosystems: patterns,

processes, and yields. Washington, DC: AAAS

Press; p. 179-187.

Levin, S.A. 1993. Approaches to forecasting biomass

yields in large marine ecosystems. In: Sherman, K.;

Alexander, L.M.; Gold, B.D., eds. Large marine

ecosystems: stress, mitigation and sustainability.

Washington, DC: AAAS Press; p. 36-39.

Lindemann, R.L. 1942. The trophic dynamic aspect of

ecology. Ecology 23:399-418.

Lluch-Belda, D.; Lluch-Cota, D.B.; Lluch-Cota, S.E. 2003.

Figure 9 in: Interannual variability impacts on the

California Current Large Marine Ecosystem. Chapter 9

in: Hempel, G.; Sherman, K., eds. Large marine

ecosystems of the world: trends in exploitation,

protection, and research. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science; p. 212.

Mangel, M. 1991. Empirical and theoretical aspects of

fisheries yield models for large marine ecosystems. In:

Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M.; Gold, B.D., eds. Food

chains, yields, models, and management of large

marine ecosystems. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; p.

243-261.

McGlade, J.M.; Cury, P.; Koranteng, K.A.; HardmanMountford, N.J., editors. 2002. The Gulf of Guinea

Large Marine Ecosystem: environmental forcing and

sustainable development of marine resources.

Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier B.V.; 392 p.
Page 16

Morgan, J.R. 1989. Large marine ecosystems in the Pacific

Ocean. In: Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M., eds.

Biomass yields and geography of large marine

ecosystems. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Sel. Symp. 111.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press; p. 377-394.

NEFSC [Northeast Fisheries Science Center]. 1999.

Atlantic herring. In: Report of the 27th Northeast

Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (27th SAW):

Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) consensus summary of assessments. U.S. Dep. Commer.,

Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 98-15:281-309.

NEFSC [Northeast Fisheries Science Center]. 2002.

Assessment of 20 Northeast groundfish stocks

through 2001: a report of the Groundfish Assessment

Review Meeting (GARM), Northeast Fisheries Science

Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, October 8-11,

2002. U.S. Dep. Commer., Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent.

Ref. Doc. 02-16; 511 p.

NRC [National Research Council]. 2000. Clean coastal

waters: understanding and reducing the effects of

nutrient pollution. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 27 p.

Pauly, D.; Christensen, V. 1995. Primary production

required to sustain global fisheries. Nature 374:255-

257.

Pauly, D.; Chuenpagdee, R. 2003. Development of

Fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand Large Marine

Ecosystem: analysis of an unplanned experiment. In:

Hempel, G.; Sherman, K., eds. Large marine

ecosystems of the world: trends in exploitation,

protection, and research. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science; p. 337-354.

Pimm, S.L. 1984. The complexity and stability of

ecosystems. Nature 307:321-326.

Prescott, J.R.V. 1989. The political division of large marine

ecosystems in the Atlantic Ocean and some

associated seas. In: Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M.,

eds. Biomass yields and geography of large marine

ecosystems. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Sel. Symp. 111.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press; p. 395-442.

Rabalais, N.N.; Turner, R.E.; Wiseman, W.J., Jr. 1999.

Hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico: linkages with

the Mississippi River. In: Kumpf, H.; Steidinger, K.;

Sherman, K., eds. The Gulf of Mexico Large Marine

Ecosystem: assessment, sustainability, and management. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science; p. 297-322.

Ricklefs, R.E. 1987. Community diversity: relative roles of

local and regional processes. Science 235(4785):161-

171.

Schaefer, M.B. 1954. Some aspects of the dynamics of

populations important to the management of the

commercial marine fisheries. Bull. Inter-Am. Trop.

Tuna Comm. 1:27-56.

Seitzinger, S.P.; Kroeze, C. 1998. Global distribution of

nitrous oxide production and N inputs to freshwater

and coastal marine ecosystems. Global Biogeochem.

Cycles 12:93-113.

Sherman, B. 2000. Marine ecosystem health as an

expression of morbidity, mortality, and disease events.

Mar. Pollut. Bull. 41(1-6):232-54.

Sherman, K. 1994. Sustainability, biomass yields, and

health of coastal ecosystems: an ecological perspective. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 112:277-301.

Sherman, K. 1998. Assessment, sustainability, and

monitoring of coastal ecosystems: an ecological

perspective. In: Sherman, K.; Okemwa, E.N.; Ntiba,

M.J., eds. Large marine ecosystems of the Indian

Ocean: assessment, sustainability, and management.

Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science; p. 3-22.

Sherman, K., editor. 1993. Emerging theoretical basis for

monitoring the changing states (health) of large marine

ecosystems: summary report of two workshops: 23

April 1992, National Marine Fisheries Service,

Narragansett, Rhode Island, and 11-12 July 1992,Cornell

University, Ithaca, New York. NOAA Tech. Memo.

NMFS-F/NEC-100; 27 p.

Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M., editors. 1986. Variability

and management of large marine ecosystems. Am.

Assoc. Adv. Sci. Sel. Symp. 99. Boulder, CO: Westview

Press; 319 p.

Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M., editors. 1989. Biomass

yields and geography of large marine ecosystems. Am.

Assoc. Adv. Sci. Sel. Symp. 111. Boulder, CO:

Westview Press; 449 p.

Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M.; Gold, B.D., editors. 1990.

Large marine ecosystems: patterns, processes and

yields. Washington, DC: AAAS Press; 242 p.

Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M.; Gold, B.D., editors. 1991. Food

chains, yields, models, and management of large marine

ecosystems. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 320 p.

Sherman, K.; Alexander, L.M.; Gold, B.D., editors. 1993.

Large marine ecosystems: stress, mitigation and

sustainability. Washington, DC: AAAS Press; 376p.

Sherman, K.; Grosslein, M.; Mountain, D.; Busch, D.;

O’Reilly, J.; Theroux, R. 1988. The continental shelf

ecosystem off the northeast coast of the United

States. Chapter 9 in: Postma, H.; Zilstra, J.J., eds.

Ecosystems of the world 27: continental shelves.

Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; p. 279-337.

Sherman, K.; Jaworski, N.A.; Smayda, T.J., editors. 1996.

The Northeast Shelf Ecosystem: assessment,

sustainability, and management. Cambridge, MA:

Blackwell Science; 564 p.

Sherman, K.; Kane, J.; Murawski, S.; Overholtz, W.; Solow,

A. 2002. In: Sherman, K.; Skjoldal, H.R., eds. Large

marine ecosystems of the North Atlantic: changing

states and sustainability. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science; p. 195-215.

Sherman, K.; Okemwa, E.N.; Ntiba, M.J., editors. 1998.

Large marine ecosystems of the Indian Ocean:

assessment, sustainability, and management. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science; 394 p.

Sherman, K.; O’Reilly, J.; Kane, J. 2003. Assessment and

sustainability of the U.S. Northeast Shelf Ecosystem.
Page 17

In: Hempel, G.; Sherman, K., eds. Large marine

ecosystems of the world: trends in exploitation,

protection, and research. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science; p. 93-120.

Sherman, K.; Skjoldal, H.R., editors. 2002. Large marine

ecosystems of the North Atlantic: changing states and

sustainability. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier

Science; 449 p.

Sherman, K.; Tang, Q., editors. 1999. Large marine

ecosystems of the Pacific Rim: assessment,

sustainability and management. Malden, MA:

Blackwell Science; 465 p.

Steele, J.H. 1988. Scale selection for biodynamic theories.

In: Rothschild, B.J., ed. Toward a theory on biologicalphysical interactions in the world ocean. NATO ASI

Ser. C Math. Phys. Sci. 239:513-526.

Sutinen, J.G., editor. 2000. A framework for monitoring and

assessing socioeconomics and governance of large

marine ecosystems. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE158; 32 p.

Tang, Q. 2003. Figure 10 in: The Yellow Sea and mitigation

action. Chapter 6 in: Hempel, G.; Sherman, K., eds.

Large marine ecosystems of the world: trends in

exploitation, protection, and research. Amsterdam,

The Netherlands: Elsevier Science; p. 137.

Terazaki, M. 1999. The Sea of Japan Large Marine

Ecosystem. In: Sherman, K.; Tang, Q., eds. Large

marine ecosystems of the Pacific Rim: assessment,

sustainability and management. Malden, MA:

Blackwell Science; p. 199-220.

UNGA [UN General Assembly]. 2001. Report on the work

of the United Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative Process established by the General Assembly in

its resolution 54/33 in order to facilitate the annual

review by the Assembly of developments in ocean

affairs at its second meeting. Rep. A/ 56/121 (22 June

2001); 62 p.

USCOP [U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy]. 2004.

Preliminary report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean

Policy -- governor’s draft. Washington, DC: U.S.

Commission on Ocean Policy; 413 p.

USEPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]. 2001.

National coastal condition report. EPA-620/R-01/005;

204 p.

USEPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]. 2004.

National coastal condition report. EPA-620/R-03/002.

http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/2005/nccr2-

factsheet.html.

Wang, H. 2004. An evaluation of the modular approach to

the assessment and management of large marine

ecosystems. Ocean Dev. Int. 35:267-286.

Watson, R.; Pauly, D.; Christensen, V.; Froese, R.;

Longhurst, A.; Platt, T.; Sathyendranath, S.; Sherman,

K.; O’Reilly, J.; Celone, P. 2003. Mapping fisheries

onto marine ecosystems for regional, oceanic and

global integrations. Chapter 16 in: Hempel, G.;

Sherman, K., eds. Large marine ecosystems of the

world: trends in exploitation, protection, and research.

Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science; p. 375-

396.

Wolff, M.; Wosnitza-Mendo, C.; Mendo, J. 2003. Figure 6

in: The Humboldt Current LME. Chapter 12 in:

Hempel, G.; Sherman, K., eds. Large marine

ecosystems of the world: trends in exploitation,

protection, and research. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science; p. 287.
Page 18Table 1. Published studies and volumes on LMEs

LME Vol.a Author(s) LME Vol.a Author(s)

Somali Coastal Current 7 Okemwa East China Sea 8 Chen & ShenBay of Bengal 5 Dwividi Yellow Sea 2, 5, 12 Tang 7 Hazizi Kuroshio Current 2 TerazakiEast Bering Sea 1 Incze & Schumacher Sea of Japan 8 Terazaki 8 Livingston et al. Oyashio Current 2 Minoda

West Greenland Shelf

3 Hovgård & Buch Okhotsk Sea 5 Kusnetsov et al.

5 Blindheim & Skjoldal

Gulf of Mexico

2 Richards & McGowan

10 Rice 4 Brown et al.

Barents Sea

2 Skjoldal & Rey 9 Shipp4 Borisov 9 Gracia & Vasquez Baden5 Skjoldal Southeast U.S. Shelf 4 Yoder

10 Dalpadado et al.

Northeast U.S. Shelf

1 Sissenwine

12 Matishov 4 Falkowski

Norwegian Shelf 3 Ellertsen et al. 6 Anthony 5 Blindheim & Skjoldal 10, 12 ShermanNorth Sea

1 Daan Scotian Shelf 10 Zwanenburg et al.

9 Reid Caribbean Sea 3 Richards & Bohnsack

10 McGlade Patagonian Shelf 5 Bakun12 Hempel South Brazil Shelf 12 Ekau & Knoppers

Iceland Shelf 10 Astthorsson & Vilhjálmsson East Brazil Shelf 12 Ekau & KnoppersFaroe Plateau 10 Gaard et al. North Brazil Shelf 12 Ekau & KnoppersAntarctic

1 Scully et al. Baltic Sea 1 Kullenberg 3 Hempel 12 Jansson

5 Scully et al. Celtic-Biscay Shelf 10 Lavin

California Current

1 MacCall Iberian Coastal 2 Perez-Gandaras 4 Mullin 10 Wyatt & Porteiro

5 Bottom Mediterranean Sea 5 Caddy

12 Lluch-Belda et al. Canary Current 5 Bas Pacific American Coastal 8 Bakun et al. 12 Roy & Cury

Humboldt Current 5 Bernal

Guinea Current

5 Binet & Marchal

12 Wolff et al. 11 Koranteng & McGlade

Gulf of Thailand 5 Piyakarnchana 11 Mensah & Quaatey 12 Pauly & Chuenpagdee 11 Lovell & McGladeSouth China Sea 5 Christensen 11 Cury & RoyIndonesian Sea 3 Zijlstra & Baars 11 KorantengNortheast Australian Shelf

2 Bradbury & Mundy Benguela Current 2 Crawford et al. 5 Kelleher 12 Shannon & O’Toole

8, 12 Brodie Black Sea 5 Caddy 12 Daskalov

a1 = Sherman and Alexander (1986); 2 = Sherman and Alexander (1989); 3 = Sherman et al. (1990); 4 = Sherman et al. (1991); 5 = Sherman et al. (1993); 6 = Sherman et al.

(1996); 7 = Sherman et al. (1998); 8 = Sherman and Tang (1999); 9 = Kumpf et al. (1996); 10 = Skjoldal and Sherman (2002); 11 = McGlade et al. (2002); and 12 = Hempel

and Sherman (2003).
Page 19

Table 2. Primary and secondary driving forces of biomass yields for 29 LMEs. (Driving forces based on published expert assessments

in LME volumes listed in Table 1. Annual biomass yields based on 1990-1999 mid-decadal data (i.e., 1995) from Garibaldi

and Limongelli (2003), unless specified otherwise.)

LME

Driving Force Annual

Biomass

Yield

(mmt)

Source(s) Volume

Primary Secondary

Humboldt Current climate fishing 16.0 Alheit and Bernal 5

Wolff et al. 12

South China Sea fishing climate 10.0 Pauly and Christensen 5

East China Sea fishing climate 3.8 Chen and Shen 8

North Sea fishing climate 3.5 McGlade 10

East Bering Sea inconclusive inconclusive 2.1 Schumacher et al. 12

Bay of Bengal fishing climate 2.0 Dwividi 5

Hazizi 7

Okhotsk Seaa climate fishing 2.0 Kusnetsov et al. 5

Canary Current climate fishing 1.8 Roy and Cury 12

Bas 5

Norwegian Shelf climate fishing 1.5 Ellertsen et al. 3

Blindheim and Skjoldal 5

Iceland Shelf climate fishing 1.3 Astthorsson and Vilhjálmsson 10

Benguela Current climate fishing 1.2 Crawford et al. 2

Shannon and O’Toole 12

Gulf of Thailand fishing climate 1.1 Pauly and Chuenpagdee 12

Mediterranean fishing eutrophication 1.1 Caddy 5

Sea of Japanb climate fishing 1.0 Terazaki 8

Gulf of Mexico fishing climate 0.9

Richards and McGowan 2

Brown et al. 4

Shipp 9

Guinea Current climate fishing 0.9 Binet and Marchal 5

Koranteng and McGlade 11

Baltic Sea fishing eutrophication 0.8 Kullenberg 1

Jansson 12

California Current climate fishing 0.7 MacCall 1

Lluch-Belda et al. 12

U.S. Northeast Shelf fishing climate 0.7

Sissenwine 1

Murawski 6

Sherman et al. 10

Scotian Shelf fishing climate 0.7 Zwanenburg et al. 10

Zwanenburg 12

Black Sea eutrophication fishing 0.5 Caddy 5

Daskalov 12

Barents Sea climate fishing 0.5

Skjoldal and Rey 2

Borisov 4

Blindheim and Skjoldal 5

Matishov et al. 12

Caribbean Sea fishing climate 0.4 Richards and Bohnsack 3

Iberian Coastal climate fishing 0.3 Wyatt and Perez-Gandaras 2

Newfoundland-Labrador fishing climate 0.2 Rice et al. 10

Yellow Seac fishing climate 0.2 Tang 2

Tang 12

Great Barrier Reef fishing climate 0.1 Brodie 12

West Greenland Shelf climate fishing 0.1 Hovgård and Buch 3

Pederson and Rice 10

Faroe Plateau climate fishing 0.1 Gaard et al. 10

a

Annual biomass yield data based on 1962-1982 mid-decadal data (i.e., 1972) from Kusnetsov et al. (1993). b

Annual biomass yield data based on 1980-1990 mid-decadal data (i.e., 1985) from Terazaki (1999). c

Annual biomass yield data based on 1952-1992 mid-decadal data (i.e., 1972) for demersal species from Tang (2003).
Page 20

Table 3. Reported 1999 annual fisheries biomass yields of LMEs where stewardship ministries are implementing or planning

GEF-LME projects

LME Biomass Yield (mmt) LME Biomass Yield (mmt)

South China Sea 13.9 Gulf of Mexico 1.0

Humboldt Current 12.0 Baltic Sea 0.9

Bay of Bengal 2.3 Yellow Sea 0.6

Patagonian Shelf 1.7 Black Sea 0.5

Canary Current 1.6 Caribbean Sea 0.35

Benguela Current 1.1 Red Sea 0.08

Guinea Current 1.0 Agulhas/Somali Currents 0.07

Mediterranean Sea 1.0

Total in million metric tons: 38.10

Total as percentage of global marine yield: 44.8
Page 21

Table 4. The 121 countries participating in GEF-LME projects

LME (no. of countries) Countries

APPROVED GEF PROJECTS

Gulf of Guinea (6) Benin, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria, TogoYellow Sea (2) China, KoreaPatagonia Shelf/Maritime Front (2) Argentina, Uruguay Baltic (9) Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, SwedenBenguela Current (3) Angola, Namibia, South AfricaSouth China Sea (7) Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, VietnamBlack Sea (6) Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russia, Turkey, UkraineMediterranean (19) Albania, Algeria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Egypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Slovenia, Spain, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Yugoslavia, PortugalRed Sea (7) Djibouti, Egypt Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, YemenWestern Pacific Warm Water Pool-SIDSa (13) Cook Islands, Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu

Total number of countries with approved GEF projects: 70b

GEF PROJECTS IN THE PREPARATION STAGE

Canary Current (7) Cape Verde, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Morocco, SenegalBay of Bengal (8) Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, ThailandHumboldt Current (2) Chile, PeruGuinea Current (16) Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Ghana, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Nigeria, São Tomé and Principe, Sierra Leone, TogoGulf of Mexico (3) Cuba, Mexico, United StatesAgulhus/Somali Currents (8) Comoros, Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, South Africa, TanzaniaCaribbean LME (23)

Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Grenada, Dominica, DominicanRepublic, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Puerto Ricoc, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint

Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela

Total number of countries with GEF projects in the preparation stage: 63b

aProvisionally classified as Insular Pacific Provinces in the global hierarchy of LMEs and Pacific biomes (Watson et al. 2003).

bAdjusted for multiple listings.cA self-governing commonwealth in union with the United States.

Publishing in NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE

Manuscript Qualification

This series represents a secondary level of scientific

publishing in the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

For all issues, the series employs thorough internal scientific

review, but not necessarily external scientific review. For most

issues, the series employs rigorous technical and copy editing.

Manuscripts that may warrant a primary level of scientific

publishing should be initially submitted to one of NMFS's

primary series (i.e., Fishery Bulletin, NOAA Technical Report

NMFS, or Marine Fisheries Review).

Identical, or fundamentally identical, manuscripts should

not be concurrently submitted to this and any other publication

series. Manuscripts which have been rejected by any primary

series strictly because of geographic or temporal limitations

may be submitted to this series.

Manuscripts by Northeast Fisheries Science Center

(NEFSC) authors will be published in this series upon approval

by the NEFSC's Deputy Science & Research Director. Manuscripts by non-NEFSC authors may be published in this series

if: 1) the manuscript serves the NEFSC's mission; 2) the

manuscript meets the Deputy Science & Research Director's

approval; and 3) the author arranges for the printing and binding

funds to be transferred to the NEFSC's Research Communications Unit account from another federal account. For all

manuscripts submitted by non-NEFSC authors and published

in this series, the NEFSC will disavow all responsibility for the

manuscripts' contents; authors must accept such responsibility.

The ethics of scientific research and scientific publishing

are a serious matter. All manuscripts submitted to this series

are expected to adhere -- at a minimum -- to the ethical guidelines

contained in Chapter 1 ("Ethical Conduct in Authorship and

Publication") of the CBE Style Manual, fifth edition (Chicago,

IL: Council of Biology Editors). Copies of the manual are

available at virtually all scientific libraries.

edition of the United States Government Printing Office Style

Manual. That style manual is silent on many aspects of scientific

manuscripts. NEFSC publication and report series rely more on the

CBE Style Manual, fifth edition.

For in-text citations, use the name-date system. A special

effort should be made to ensure that the list of cited works contains

all necessary bibliographic information. For abbreviating serial

titles in such lists, use the guidance of the International Standards

Organization; such guidance is easily accessed through the various

Cambridge Scientific Abstracts’ serials source lists (see http://

www.public.iastate.edu/~CYBERSTACKS/JAS.htm). Personal communications must include date of contact and full name and mailing

address of source.

For spelling of scientific and common names of fishes, mollusks, and decapod crustaceans from the United States and Canada,

use Special Publications No. 20 (fishes), 26 (mollusks), and 17

(decapod crustaceans) of the American Fisheries Society (Bethesda,

MD). For spelling of scientific and common names of marine

mammals, use Special Publication No. 4 of the Society for Marine

Mammalogy (Lawrence, KS). For spelling in general, use the most

recent edition of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of

the English Language Unabridged (Springfield, MA: G.&C.

Merriam).

Typing text, tables, and figure captions: Text, tables, and

figure captions should be converted to WordPerfect. In general,

keep text simple (e.g., don't switch fonts and type sizes, don't use

hard returns within paragraphs, don't indent except to begin

paragraphs). Also, don't use an automatic footnoting function; all

notes should be indicated in the text by simple numerical superscripts, and listed together in an "Endnotes" section prior to the

"References Cited" section. Especially, don't use a graphics

function for embedding tables and figures in text.

Tables should be prepared with a table formatting function.

Each figure should be supplied both on paper and on disk, unless

there is no digital file of a given figure. Except under extraordinary

circumstances, color will not be used in illustrations.

Manuscript Preparation

Organization: Manuscripts must have an abstract, table

of contents, and -- if applicable -- lists of tables, figures, and

acronyms. As much as possible, use traditional scientific

manuscript organization for sections: "Introduction," "Study

Area," "Methods & Materials," "Results," "Discussion" and/

or "Conclusions," "Acknowledgments," and "References Cited."

Style: All NEFSC publication and report series are

obligated to conform to the style contained in the most recent

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Operations, Management & Information Services Staff

Research Communications Branch

Manuscript Submission

Authors must submit one paper copy of the double-spaced

manuscript, one disk copy, and original figures (if applicable).

NEFSC authors must include a completely signed-off "NEFSC

Manuscript/Abstract/Webpage Review Form." Non-NEFSC authors who are not federal employees will be required to sign a

"Release of Copyright" form.

Send all materials and address all correspondence to: Jon A.

Gibson (Biological Sciences Editor), NMFS Northeast Fisheries

Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026.
National Marine Fisheries Service

166 Water St.

Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026

Publications and Reports

of the

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

The mission of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is "stewardship of living marine resources for

the benefit of the nation through their science-based conservation and management and promotion of the health

of their environment." As the research arm of the NMFS's Northeast Region, the Northeast Fisheries Science

Center (NEFSC) supports the NMFS mission by "conducting ecosystem-based research and assessments of living

marine resources, with a focus on the Northeast Shelf, to promote the recovery and long-term sustainability of these

resources and to generate social and economic opportunities and benefits from their use." Results of NEFSC

research are largely reported in primary scientific media (e.g., anonymously-peer-reviewed scientific journals).

However, to assist itself in providing data, information, and advice to its constituents, the NEFSC occasionally

releases its results in its own media. Currently, there are three such media:

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE -- This series is issued irregularly. The series typically includes: data reports of longterm field or lab studies of important species or habitats; synthesis reports for important species or habitats; annual reports of overall

assessment or monitoring programs; manuals describing program-wide surveying or experimental techniques; literature surveys of

important species or habitat topics; proceedings and collected papers of scientific meetings; and indexed and/or annotated bibliographies.

All issues receive internal scientific review and most issues receive technical and copy editing.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document -- This series is issued irregularly. The series typically includes: data reports

on field and lab studies; progress reports on experiments, monitoring, and assessments; background papers for, collected abstracts of,

and/or summary reports of scientific meetings; and simple bibliographies. Issues receive internal scientific review, but no technical

or copy editing.

Resource Survey Report (formerly Fishermen's Report) -- This information report is a quick-turnaround report on the distribution

and relative abundance of selected living marine resources as derived from each of the NEFSC's periodic research vessel surveys of the

Northeast's continental shelf. There is no scientific review, nor any technical or copy editing, of this report.

OBTAINING A COPY: To obtain a copy of a NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE or a Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Reference Document, or to subscribe to the Resource Survey Report, either contact the NEFSC Editorial Office (166 Water St., Woods

Hole, MA 02543-1026; 508-495-2228) or consult the NEFSC webpage on "Reports and Publications" (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/

nefsc/publications/).

ANY USE OF TRADE OR BRAND NAMES IN ANY NEFSC PUBLICATION OR REPORT DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT.

MEDIA

 MAIL