Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EBSCOhost - A Framework For Incorporating Climate Regime Shifts Into The Management of ..
EBSCOhost - A Framework For Incorporating Climate Regime Shifts Into The Management of ..
EBSCOhost - A Framework For Incorporating Climate Regime Shifts Into The Management of ..
;
where R is the number of young in year i, P are the
number of spawners at the end of the previous year
after any harvest (expressed as number sh), e is the
regime effect assigned to year i and a and b are
parameters (Table 1). Three, 20-year regime periods
were modelled, with the rst 20 years as a period of
good productivity (regime 1), the second 20 years as a
period of poor productivity (regime 2) and the nal
20 years as a period of moderate productivity (regime
3). Values of e were selected such that the resultant
unshed biomass approximated 50% in regime 2 and
75% in regime 3 of the regime 1 biomass (Table 1).
Two sets of harvest scenarios were used and the total
harvest (tonnes) was calculated over the 60 years for
each scenario. The rst group of scenarios used a
constant harvest rate (F) over the 60 years (irrespective
of changes in productivity) set to F annual mortality
(M); F 0.5M and F 0.25M. The second set used
regime-specic harvest rates with scenarios varying by
the timing in which the harvest rate was switched:
coincidental with the regime shift year, delayed until
age of 50% maturity (i.e. 3 or 5 years for short-lived or
long-lived respectively) and delayed until twice the age
of 50% maturity. One group of regime-specic harvest
rate scenarios used F M, F 0.5M and F M for
regime 1, regime 2 and regime 3 respectively. These
represent typical harvest rates proposed in sheries
management. The other regime-specic harvest rate
scenarios used F M, F 0.25M and F 0.5M for
regime 1, regime 2 and regime 3 respectively, to reect
the relative levels of productivity for each respective
regime (i.e. high, low and moderate).
The maximum number of spawners observed over
the 60 years without any harvest was used to set the
criteria for shery closures and conservation concerns.
The 25% and 30% levels of this maximum were used
as representatives of critical spawning biomass and a
level for which there would be conservation concerns
respectively. These levels are currently used by North
American management agencies (Fisheries and Oceans
Canada; National Marine Fisheries Service) as mini-
mum spawning biomass reference points. When run-
ning the harvest scenarios, the harvest rate would be
set to zero if the spawning stock (numbers of sh) fell
below the critical spawning biomass. The number of
years that the shery was closed and the total number
of years in which there was a conservation concern
were totalled for all 60 years.
Short-lived species
The simulated unshed population of the short-lived
species responded to regime shift changes in year class
success (i.e. productivity) quickly and the resultant
lower or higher spawning stock size stabilised within
5 years (Fig. 2a). As expected, the spawning stock was
depleted more quickly and to a lower level as the
constant harvest rate increased from F 0.25M to M
(Fig. 2a). Conversely, the rebuilding rate and level to
which that the spawning stock rebuilt during the third
regime when year class success improved was greater
for the lower constant harvest rate (F 0.25M)
scenario (Fig. 2a). In the simulation, the aggressive
harvest rate of F M translated into a failure of the
spawning stock to rebuild, and the spawning stock
remained close to the level that was dened as the
critical spawning stock size (Fig. 2a).
By denition, the total yield decreased with decreas-
ing constant harvest rate, such that the total yield with
Table 1. Parameters used in the Beverton-Holt age-structured
models for the short-lived and long-lived species
Parameters Short-lived species Long-lived species
Maximum age 10 50
Age at 50% maturity 3 5
Annual mortality 0.4 0.1
Maximum size (kg) 0.3 3
A 0.00000017 0.000001
B 0.02 0.001
Regime 1 eect, e 1 1
Regime 2 eect, e 1.7 3
Regime 3 eect, e 1.2 1.5
REGI MES AND MARI NE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 97
2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2006, 13, 93102
F 0.25M was only 30% of the total yield achieved
with F M (Fig. 3a). However, the benet of a lower
constant harvest rate in this modelled population was
fewer or no shery closures or years with a conserva-
tion concern (Fig. 3b). The aggressive constant harvest
rate (F M) resulted in 8 years of closure with an
additional 21 years in which there would be a conser-
vation concern, which means 48% of the time the
spawning stock is near or below the critical spawning
stock size that was set as the limit reference point
(Fig. 3b). Overall, lower constant harvest rates of F
0.5M or F 0.25M resulted in no shery closures and
no years with a conservation concern, but there was a
substantial decrease in the total yield obtained
(Fig. 3a, b).
The regime-specic harvest rate scenario with F
M, F 0.5M and F M allowed for aggressive
harvesting in periods of good productivity, producing
comparable total yields to the constant F M
scenario and higher yields than the constant F
0.5M or F 0.25M scenarios (Fig. 3a). They pro-
duced fewer years with a shery closure (12 years) or
a conservation concern than the constant F M
scenario (Fig. 3b). There was no advantage in switch-
ing the harvest rates exactly on the year of the regime
shift and a delay to the age of recruitment in
switching harvest rates did not increase the years
with a shery closure but reduced the number of
years with conservation concerns (Fig. 3b). Delaying
the switch in harvest rates by twice the age of
recruitment increased the number of years in which
there was a shery closure (Fig. 3b). For these
regime-specic harvest rate scenarios, the stock failed
to rebuild during regime 3, when year class success
improved (Fig. 2b). The benet of increased total
yield was traded-o by the years with shery closures
or conservation concerns and the lack of rebuilding
when recruitment improves.
These trade-offs were minimised with the selection
of regime-specic harvest rates that reected the
relative productivity of the different regimes (F M,
F 0.25M and F 0.5M). The total yield obtained
under this harvest rate scenario was 15% higher than
that obtained with F 0.5 M (Fig. 3a) and there were
no years with shery closures or conservation concerns
unless the change in harvest rate is delayed by twice the
age of recruitment (Fig. 3c). More importantly, the
spawning stock size was higher during the low
productivity regime than the spawning stock size
maintained with a constant F 0.50M harvest rate,
and the spawning stock was able to rebuild to
comparable levels during regime 3, when productivity
improved (Fig. 2c).
(a)
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Year
(b)
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Year
S
p
a
w
n
i
n
g
s
t
o
c
k
(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
o
f
f
i
s
h
)
S
p
a
w
n
i
n
g
s
t
o
c
k
(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
o
f
f
i
s
h
)
Year
(c)
S
p
a
w
n
i
n
g
s
t
o
c
k
(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
o
f
f
i
s
h
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Figure 2. (a) Spawning stock (millions of sh) from a Beverton-Holt
age-structured model for the short-lived population with no harvest
(solid line), with harvest rate (F) equal to annual mortality (M) (dotted
line), with F 0.5M (dotted and dashed line) and with F 0.25M
(dashed line). (b) Spawning stock (millions of sh) from the same
model, but with regime-specic harvest rates (F M, F 0.5M and
F M) where the switch in harvest rates coincides with the regime shift
year (solid line), is delayed by age of 50% maturity (3 years, dashed
line) or is delayed by twice the age of 50% maturity (dotted line). (c)
Spawning stock (millions of sh) with regime-specic harvest rates
(F M, F 0.25M and F 0.5M) where the switch in harvest rates
coincides with the regime shift year (solid line), is delayed by age of 50%
maturity (3 years, dashed line) or is delayed by twice the age of 50%
maturity (dotted line); the spawning stock size for the constant harvest
rate F 0.5M (dotted and dashed line) is redisplayed for comparison.
In all plots, the horizontal line indicates the assigned critical spawning
stock size below which no harvest is permitted. In all model simulations,
the rst 20-year regime period is high productivity, the second 20-year
regime period is low productivity and the third regime period is mod-
erate productivity.
J. R. KI NG & G. A. MCFARLANE 98
2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2006, 13, 93102
Long-lived species
The spawning stock of the unshed population began
to respond to the regime shifts 5 years (age to 50%
maturity) after they occurred (Fig. 4a). The decrease
or increase of spawning stock size in response to
regime shifts to low or moderate productivity contin-
ued throughout the regime period and did not stabilise
(Fig. 4a). The higher the rate of harvest in the constant
harvest rate scenarios, the greater the rate and level of
depletion during the low productivity regime, and the
lower the level of rebuilding in the moderate produc-
tivity regime (Fig. 4a). The benet of higher total yield
obtained with an aggressive harvest rate (F M) was
offset by 10 years with shery closures and an addi-
tional 18 years with conservation concerns (Fig. 5a, b).
Even the F 0.5M constant harvest rate scenario
resulted in years with shery closures and with
conservation concerns (Fig. 5b). Only the lowest har-
vest rate (F 0.25M) did not result in these draw-
backs (Fig. 5b), but the total yield was approximately
60% lower than the total yield obtained from F M
(Fig. 5a).
The regime-specic harvest rate scenario with F
M, F 0.5M and F M produced high total yields,
comparable with the constant harvest rate scenario
F M (Fig. 5a). Switching harvest rates the same year
as a regime shift, has an immediate impact on
spawning stock size when the year class success goes
from high to low; the immediate reduction in harvest
rate results in a 5-year increase in spawning stock size
as a pulse of good recruitment from the previous
regime enters the shery (Fig. 4b). Delaying the switch
to regime-specic harvest rates by the age of recruit-
ment or twice this age (5 and 10 years respectively), did
not alter the ability of the spawning stock to rebuild
(Fig. 4b) or greatly alter the number of years with
shery closures or with conservation concerns
(Fig. 4b). Unlike the short-lived species, when produc-
tivity improved (regime 3), the spawning stock exhib-
ited moderate rebuilding (Fig. 4b). This is a function of
the prolonged reproductive lifespan of a long-lived
species and the benet of having many age classes. It
also highlights the benet of maintaining a robust age
structure and conserving older sh.
As with the short-lived species, the regime-specic
harvest rate scenario with F M, F 0.25M and
F 0.5M reduced the number of years with a shery
closure (Fig. 5c) and produced slightly higher overall
yields than the constant F 0.5M or F 0.25M
harvest rates (Fig. 5a). This scenario allowed aggres-
sive harvesting during the high productivity regime
(regime 1), but the spawning stock size by the end of
(a)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
F = M F= 0.5M F= 0.25M No lag 3-year lag 6-year lag
3-year lag 6-year lag
3-year lag 6-year lag
Model scenario
Y
i
e
l
d
(
t
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
o
f
t
o
n
n
e
s
)
(b)
F = M F = 0.5M F= 0.25M No lag
Model scenario
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
y
e
a
r
s
(c)
F = M F = 0.5M F =0.25M No lag
Model scenario
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
y
e
a
r
s
Figure 3. (a) The total harvest (thousands of tonnes) for the various
harvest rate scenarios for the short-lived species population; solid bars
are the constant harvest rate scenarios and the F M; F 0.5M; F
M regime-specic harvest rate scenarios; open bars are the F M;
F 0.25M; F 0.5M regime-specic harvest rate scenarios. (b) The
number of years that the shery was closed (solid bars) or in which there
was a conservation concern (open bars) as dened by 25% and 30% of
the maximum unshed spawning stock respectively. Six harvest rate
scenarios are presented: constant harvest rates (F) for 60 years, F equal
to annual natural mortality (M) or F 0.5M or F 0.25M; and
regime-specic harvest rates (F M; F 0.5M; F M) in which the
switch in harvest rates coincides with the regime shift year (no lag), is
delayed by age of 50% maturity (3-year lag) or by twice the age of 50%
maturity (6-year lag). (c) Similar to (b) with the constant harvest rate
scenarios redisplayed for comparison with the regime-specic harvest
rates (F M; F 0.25M; F 0.5M).
REGI MES AND MARI NE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 99
2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2006, 13, 93102
(a)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61
Year
S
p
a
w
n
i
n
g
s
t
o
c
k
(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
o
f
f
i
s
h
)
(b)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61
Year
S
p
a
w
n
i
n
g
s
t
o
c
k
(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
o
f
f
i
s
h
)
(c)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61
Year
S
p
a
w
n
i
n
g
s
t
o
c
k
(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
o
f
f
i
s
h
)
Figure 4. (a) Spawning stock (millions of sh) from a Beverton-Holt
age-structured model for the long-lived population with no harvest
(solid line), with harvest rate (F) equal to annual mortality (M) (dotted
line), with F 0.5M (dotted and dashed line) and with F 0.25M
(dashed line). (b) Spawning stock (millions of sh) from the same
model, but with regime-specic harvest rates (F M, F 0.5M and
F M) where the switch in harvest rates coincides with the regime shift
year (solid line), is delayed by age of 50% maturity (5 years, dashed
line) or is delayed by twice the age of 50% maturity (dotted line). (c)
Spawning stock (millions of sh) with regime-specic harvest rates
(F M, F 0.25M and F 0.5M) where the switch in harvest rates
coincides with the regime shift year (solid line), is delayed by age of 50%
maturity (5 years, dashed line) or is delayed by twice the age of 50%
maturity (dotted line); the spawning stock size for the constant harvest
rate F 0.5M (dotted and dashed line) is redisplayed for comparison.
In all plots, the horizontal line indicates the assigned critical spawning
stock size below which no harvest is permitted. In all model simulations,
the rst 20-year regime period is high productivity, the second 20-year
regime period is low productivity and the third regime period is mod-
erate productivity.
(a)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
F=M F=0.5M F = 0.25M No lag
Model scenario
Y
i
e
l
d
(
t
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
o
f
t
o
n
n
e
s
)
(b)
F=M F=0.5M F =0.25M No lag
Model scenario
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
y
e
a
r
s
(c)
F=M F =0.5M F =0.25M No lag 5-year lag 10-year lag
5-year lag 10-year lag
5-year lag 10-year lag
Model scenario
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
y
e
a
r
s
Figure 5. (a) The total harvest (thousands of tonnes) for the various
harvest rate scenarios for the long-lived species population; solid bars
are the constant harvest rate scenarios and the F M; F 0.5M; F
M regime-specic harvest rate scenarios; open bars are the F M;
F 0.25M; F 0.5M regime-specic harvest rate scenarios. (b) The
number of years that the shery was closed (solid bars) or in which there
was a conservation concern (open bars) as dened by 25% and 30% of
the maximum unshed spawning stock respectively. Six harvest rate
scenarios are presented: constant harvest rates (F) for 60 years, F equal
to annual natural mortality (M) or F 0.5M or F 0.25M; and
regime-specic harvest rates (F M; F 0.5M; F M) in which the
switch in harvest rates coincides with the regime shift year (no lag), is
delayed by age of 50% maturity (5-year lag) or by twice the age of 50%
maturity (10-year lag). (c) Similar to (b) with the constant harvest rate
scenarios redisplayed for comparison with the regime-specic harvest
rates (F M; F 0.25M; F 0.5M).
J. R. KI NG & G. A. MCFARLANE 100
2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2006, 13, 93102
the low productivity regime (regime 2) was higher than
that under a traditional constant harvest rate F
0.5M, and the rebuilding of the spawning stock when
productivity improves (regime 3) was similar (Fig. 4c).
Recommendations
Agencies interested in implementing ecosystem-based
sheries management can take advantage of the
existing sheries science and management activities
and build frameworks similar to the one outlined. In
doing so, ecosystem assessments will become part of
the larger ecosystem-based sheries management and
can be used to detect changes in productivity related to
regime shifts. These frameworks need to specify
explicit decision rules and subsequent actions to be
taken in response to preliminary indications that a
regime shift has occurred. Stock assessment advice
should provide an indication of the likely consequences
to stock viability of alternate harvest strategies under
various recruitment assumptions. Decision rules must
use reference points such as critical spawning biomass.
In the modelling exercises, the regime-specic harvest
rates that reected the relative levels of productivity by
regime (i.e. high, low, moderate) produced the best
balance between benets (high yield) and trade-offs
(shery closures) and overall allowed for rebuilding of
the spawning stock when productivity improved in a
similar timeframe to a similar level to that produced
from the traditional constant harvest rate F 0.5M.
For long-lived species, this recommendation is con-
trary to MacCall (2002), who suggested a constant
harvest rate was more appropriate. However, MacCall
(2002) focused on optimising yield and minimising
timeframes for rebuilding. The recommendations made
here may reect the additional consideration of
avoiding years with shery closures.
Given the dramatic impacts that regime shifts have
on productivity, constant harvest rates that are typic-
ally employed (e.g. F M) cannot maintain sustain-
able stock or sheries when productivity is greatly
reduced. It is possible to use constant harvest rates
across productivity regimes, but these harvest rates
must be very low (e.g. F 0.25M), as suggested by
Polovina (2005). These very low harvest rates are
partnered with the trade-o of much reduced yield.
The resulting loss of yield might have signicant
economic and social impacts on industry. Regime-
specic harvest rates can be delayed in implementation
by the age of maturity with very little impact on total
harvest or the number of years with shery closures.
Even if a constant harvest rate was applied across
regimes, the ecosystem assessment would still be
required to provide information on recruitment to
estimate exploitable biomass. Given the benets of
these approaches, and because the activities already
exist to build suitable frameworks, agencies can now
move forward with their mandates to implement
ecosystem-based sheries management and begin to
incorporate regime shift impacts on sh productivity
into the way they assess and manage marine resources.
References
Bakun A. (2004) Regime shifts. In: A.R. Robinson & K.
Brink (eds) The Sea, Vol. 13. Cambridge: Harvard Uni-
versity Press, pp. 9711018.
Beamish R.J. (ed.) (1995) Climate Change and Northern Fish
Populations. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 121. 739 pp.
Beamish R.J. & Bouillon D.R. (1993) Pacic salmon pro-
duction trends in relation to climate. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50, 10021016.
Boldt J. (ed.) (2004) Appendix C: Ecosystem Considerations
for 2005. North Pacic Fisheries Management Council,
Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska Stock
Assessment and Fisheries Evaluation Report 2004.
Anchorage, AL: North Pacic Fisheries Management
Council, 260 pp.
Bond N.A., Overland J.E., Spillane M. & Stabeno P. (2003)
Recent shifts in the state of the north Pacic. Geophysical
Research Letters 30, 21832186.
Browman H.I. & Stergiou K.I. (2004) Perspectives on eco-
system-based approaches to the management of marine
resources. Marine Ecology Progress Series 274, 269303.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) (2004)
2003 Pacic Region State of the Ocean. Fisheries and
Oceans Canada, Ocean Status Report No. 2004/01. 92
pp.
Fisheries and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) (1995) Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries. Rome: FAO, 41 pp.
Fisheries and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) (2002) The State of the World Fisheries and
Aquaculture 2002. Rome: FAO, 150 pp.
Hare S.R. & Mantua N.J. (2000) Empirical evidence for
North Pacic regime shifts in 1977 and 1989. Progress in
Oceanography 47, 103145.
Hilborn R., Branch T.A., Ernst B., Magnusson A., Minte-
Vera C.V., Scheurell M.D. & Valero J.L. (2003) State of
the worlds sheries. Annual Review of Environmental
Resources 28, 359399.
Hollowed A.B., Hare S.R. & Wooster W.S. (2001) Pacic
Basin climate variability and patterns of Northeast Pacic
marine sh production. Progress in Oceanography 49, 257
282.
REGI MES AND MARI NE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 101
2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2006, 13, 93102
Jackson J.B.C., Kirby M.X., Berger W.H., Bjorndal K.A.
et al. (2001) Historical overshing and the recent collapse
of coastal ecosystems. Science 293, 629638.
Kawasaki T. & Omori M. (1986) Fluctuations in three major
sardine stocks in the Pacic and the global temperature.
In: T. Wyatt & G. Larranenta (eds) Long Term Changes in
Marine Fish Populations. Bayona: Imprenta REAL, pp.
3753.
King J.R. (ed.) (2005) Report of the Study Group on Fisheries
and Ecosystem Responses to Recent Regime Shifts. PICES
Scientic Report No. 28. 162 pp.
King J.R. & McFarlane G.A. (2003) Marine sh life history
strategies: applications to shery management. Fisheries
Management and Ecology 10, 249264.
King J.R., McFarlane G.A. & Beamish R.J. (2001)
Incorporating the dynamics of marine systems into the
stock assessment and management of sablesh. Progress in
Oceanography 49, 619639.
Leaman B.M. & Beamish R.J. (1984) Ecological and man-
agement implications of longevity in some northeast
Pacic groundshes. In: Symposium on Determining
Eective Eort and Calculating Yield in Groundsh Fish-
eries, and on Pacic Cod Biology and Population Dynamics,
Vancouver, BC, 2830 October, 1981. Vancouver, BC:
Bulletin of the International North Pacic Fisheries
Commission No. 42, pp. 8597.
Livingston P.A., Aydin K., Boldt J., Ianelli J. & Jurado-
Molina J. (2005) A framework for ecosystem impacts
assessment using an indicator approach. International
Council for the Exploration of the Sea Journal of Marine
Science 62, 592597.
MacCall A.D. (2002) Fishery management and stock
rebuilding prospects under conditions of low frequency
variability and species interactions. Bulletin of Marine
Science 70, 613628.
Mantua N.J., Hare S.R., Zhang Y., Wallace J.M. & Francis
R.C. (1997) A pacic interdecadal climate oscillation with
impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society 78, 10691079.
McFarlane G.A. & Beamish R.J. (1986) Production of strong
year classes of sablesh o the west coast of Canada.
Bulletin of the International North Pacic Fisheries Com-
mission 47, 191202.
McFarlane G.A., King J.R. & Beamish R.J. (2000) Have
there been recent changes in climate? Ask the sh. Progress
in Oceanography 47, 147169.
Minobe S. (2000) Spatio-temporal structure of the penta-
decadal variability over the North Pacic. Progress in
Oceanography 47, 381408.
Myers R.A. & Worm B. (2003) Rapid worldwide depletion of
predatory sh communities. Nature 423, 280283.
Pauly D., Christensen V., Dalsgaard J., Froese R. & Torres
F. (1998) Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279,
860863.
Peterman R.M., Pyper B.J. & Grout J.A. (2000) Comparison
of parameter estimation methods for detecting climate-
induced changes in productivity of Pacic salmon
(Oncorhynchus spp.). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 57, 181191.
Polovina J.J. (1996) Decadal variation in the trans-Pacic
migration of northern bluen tuna (Thunnus thynnus)
coherent with climate-induced change in prey abundance.
Fisheries Oceanography 5, 233244.
Polovina J.J. (2005) Climate variation, regime shifts, and
implications for sustainable sheries. Bulletin of Marine
Science 76, 223244.
Rivard D. (1999) Appendix E: precautionary approach
implementation for Canadian harvest sheries. In:
R. Haigh & C. Sinclair (eds) Science Strategic Project on
the Precautionary Approach in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Ca-
nadian Stock Assessment Proceedings Series No. 99/41,
pp. 7587.
Rodionov S. & Overland J.E. (2005) Application of a
sequential regime shift detection method to the Bering Sea
ecosystem. International Council for the Exploration of the
Sea Journal of Marine Science 42, 328332.
Schwing F.B. & Moore C.S. (2000) A year without summer
for California, or a harbinger of a climate shift? Transac-
tions of the American Geophysical Union 81, 304305.
Sissenwine M. & Murawski S. (2004) Moving beyond
intelligent tinkering: advancing an Ecosystem Approach
to Fisheries. In: Perspectives on Ecosystem-based Approa-
ches to the Management of Marine Resources. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 274, 269303.
Spencer P.D. (1997) Optimal harvesting of sh populations
with nonlinear rates of predation and autocorrelated
environmental variability. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 54, 5974.
United Nations (UN) (1995) Agreement for the Implementa-
tion of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea of 10 December, 1982, Relating to the
Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks
and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. New York: UN, 21 pp.
United Nations Conference on Environment and Develop-
ment (UNCED) (1992) Rio Declaration on Environment
and Development. New York: UN, 5 pp.
Walters C.J. (2003) Folly and fantasy in the analysis of
spatial catch data. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 60, 14331436.
Walters C.J. & Parma A.M. (1996) Fixed exploitation rate
strategies for coping with eects of climate change. Cana-
dian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53, 148158.
J. R. KI NG & G. A. MCFARLANE 102
2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2006, 13, 93102