Spatially explicit estimates of length and biomass of Micromesistius poutassou (Blue Whiting) from acoustic and trawl surveys in the North-East Atlantic in May 2004

Acoustic estimates of herring and blue whiting abundance were obtained during the surveys using the Simrad ER60 scientific echosounder. The allocation of NASC-values to herring, blue whiting and other acoustic targets were based on the composition of the trawl catches and the appearance of echo recordings. To estimate the abundance, the allocated NASC -values were averaged for ICES-squares (0.5° latitude by 1° longitude). For each statistical square, the unit area density of fish (rA) in number per square nautical mile (N*nm-2) was calculated using standard equations (Foote et al., 1987; Toresen et al., 1998). To estimate the total abundance of fish, the unit area abundance for each statistical square was multiplied by the number of square nautical miles in each statistical square and then summed for all the statistical squares within defined subareas and over the total area. Biomass estimation was calculated by multiplying abundance in numbers by the average weight of the fish in each statistical square then summing all squares within defined subareas and over the total area. The Norwegian BEAM soft-ware (Totland and Godø 2001) was used to make estimates of total biomass.

Characteristics and stomach contents of Greenland sharks (Somniosus microcephalus) caught in Svalbard during June 2008-2009

Harbour seals in Svalbard have short longevity, despite being protected from human hunting and having limited terrestrial predation at their haulout sites, low contaminant burdens and no fishery by-catch issues. This led us to explore the diet of Greenland sharks (Somniosus microcephalus) in this region as a potential seal predator. We examined gastrointestinal tracts (GITs) from 45 Greenland sharks in this study. These sharks ranged from 229 to 381 cm in fork length and 136-700 kg in body mass; all were sexually immature. Seal and whale tissues were found in 36.4 and 18.2%, respectively, of the GITs that had contents (n = 33). Based on genetic analyses, the dominant seal prey species was the ringed seal (Pusa hispida); bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus) and hooded seal (Cystophora cristata) tissues were each found in a single shark. The sharks had eaten ringed seal pups and adults based on the presence of lanugo-covered prey (pups) and age determinations based on growth rings on claws (<1 year and adults). All of the whale tissue was from minke whale (Balenoptera acutorostrata) offal, from animals that had been harvested in the whale fishery near Svalbard. Fish dominated the sharks' diet, with Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) being the most important fish species. Circumstantial evidence suggests that these sharks actively prey on seals and fishes, in addition to eating carrion such as the whale tissue. Our study suggests that Greenland sharks may play a significant predatory role in Arctic food webs.

Model experiment on optimal size of a fish stock with environmental uncertainties

We analyze the effect of environmental uncertainties on optimal fishery management in a bio-economic fishery model. Unlike most of the literature on resource economics, but in line with ecological models, we allow the different biological processes of survival and recruitment to be affected differently by environmental uncertainties. We show that the overall effect of uncertainty on the optimal size of a fish stock is ambiguous, depending on the prudence of the value function. For the case of a risk-neutral fishery manager, the overall effect depends on the relative magnitude of two opposing effects, the 'convex-cost effect' and the 'gambling effect'. We apply the analysis to the Baltic cod and the North Sea herring fisheries, concluding that for risk neutral agents the net effect of environmental uncertainties on the optimal size of these fish stocks is negative, albeit small in absolute value. Under risk aversion, the effect on optimal stock size is positive for sufficiently high coefficients of constant relative risk aversion.

Zooplankton abundance for two shelf stations off Galicia (NW Spain) from 1994 to 2006

Zooplankton was sampled by project RADIALES at Vigo (E3VI) and A Coruña (E2CO) between 1994 and 2006. Samples were collected using 50-cm diameter Juday-Bogorov (A Coruña) or 40-cm diameter bongo plankton nets (Vigo) equipped with 200-µm mesh size. Tows were double oblique from surface to near bottom (90 and 70 m in Vigo and A Coruña, respectively). All samples were collected between 10:00 and 14:00 o'clock (local time). Samples were preserved in 2-4% sodium borate-buffered formaldehyde. For the purpose of this study, the original coastal time series were categorized in copepods representative of crustacean zooplankton) and gelatinous plankton (medusae and tunicates). Medusae included Hydrozoans and Scyphozoa, and tunicates included salps, pyrosomes, doliolids, and appendicularia. Plankton identification and counts were performed by Ana Miranda and M. Teresa Álvarez-Ossorio for samples from Vigo and A Coruña, respectively. Different trends were found for gelatinous plankton in the two coastal sites, characterized by increases in either medusae or tunicates. Multiyear periods of relative dominance of gelatinous vs. copepod plankton were evident. In general, copepod periods were observed in positive phases of the main modes of regional climatic variability. Conversely, gelatinous periods occurred during negative climatic phases. However, the low correlations between gelatinous plankton and either climatic, oceanographic, or fishery variables suggest that local factors play a major role in their proliferations.

Abundance of zooplankton based on a long-term study at the Galata transect and covers the spring-summer periods from 1967 till 2005

The dataset is based on a long-term study (38 years) at the Galata transect and covers the spring-summer periods from 1967 till 2005. The whole dataset is composed of 360 data of total zooplankton biomass and abundance . Samples were collected in discrete layers 0-10m, 10-20m, 10-25m, 25-50m, 50-70m, 50-100m, 100-150. Mesozooplankton abundance: the collected material was analysed using the method of Domov (1959). Samples were brought to volume of 25-30 ml depending upon zooplankton density and mixed intensively until all organisms were distributed randomly in the sample volume. After that 5 ml of sample was taken and poured in the counting chamber for taxomomic identification and count. Large (> 1 mm body length) and not abundant species were calculated in whole sample. Counting and measuring of organisms were made in the Dimov chamber under the stereomicroscope to the lowest taxon possible. Taxonomic identification was done at the Institute of Fishery Resource by Prof. Asen Konsulov and Institute of Oceanology by Prof. Asen Konsulov, Lyudmila Kamburska and Kremena Stefanova using the relevant taxonomic literature (Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D. (Ed.). 1968, 1969,1972). Taxon-specific mesozooplankton abundance: The collected material was analysed using the method of Domov (1959). Samples were brought to volume of 25-30 ml depending upon zooplankton density and mixed intensively until all organisms were distributed randomly in the sample volume. After that 5 ml of sample was taken and poured in the counting chamber for taxomomic identification and count. Copepods and Cladoceras were identified and enumerated; the other mesozooplankters were identified and enumerated at higher taxonomic level (commonly named as mesozooplankton groups). Large (> 1 mm body length) and not abundant species were calculated in whole sample. Counting and measuring of organisms were made in the Dimov chamber under the stereomicroscope to the lowest taxon possible. Taxonomic identification was done at the Institute of Fishery Resource by prof. Asen Konsulov and Institute of Oceanology by Prof. Asen Konsulov, Lyudmila Kamburska and Kremena Stefanova using the relevant taxonomic literature (Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D. (Ed.). 1968, 1969,1972).