Ecosystems processes, functions and dynamics vary across spatio-temporal scales, resulting in important implications for how ecosystem indicators are both interpreted and applied across spatial scales. In this study, we investigate selected, applied indicator suites at various spatial and jurisdictional scales in the USA to examine how scale affects indicator selection, analyses, and representation of ecosystem processes in the context of ecosystem assessments. To investigate how the spatial scale of indicators makes a difference in how they are selected and interpreted, we compared all selected indicator suites to identify common, focal indicators. We then accessed each common indicator’s original, selected data source and compared larger trends within each common indicator across scales within each region. We compared these indicators to determine how trends and analyses vary across different spatial scales. By comparing common, shared indicator data between projects, we saw more sensitivity, specificity and variability at smaller scales, but also noted shared patterns in different scales of inquiry in the same geographic coastal region. For example, it was shown that while the analysis of common indicators use different data and data frequency for different case studies, the often selected indicator of marine heat/SST gave a complementary, consistent perspective when investigated at the same frequency and in the same region across spatial scales. As more effort towards ecosystem based management is made, it becomes increasingly important to consider indicators both specific to a project scale as well as indicators that function at scales that encompass various project levels and jurisdictions.

The need for ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) is growing more urgent as environmental changes, species shifts, new ocean uses, and other factors force oceans toward novel states. In the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) developed an EBFM Policy in 2016, accompanied by a Road Map of 49 action items, to support marine ecosystem-based management and conservation of fisheries, habitats, and protected species under U.S. federal jurisdiction. In 2024, NOAA Fisheries updated its EBFM Policy and Road Map and formed a team of science and policy experts to review progress and derive lessons learned during the first Road Map iteration. Four key lessons emerged: (1) progress toward EBFM in the U.S. has been substantial; (2) greater coordination could further enhance progress; (3) more effort is required to link science to management activities; and (4) human dimensions need greater integration throughout EBFM implementation. Enabling factors for progress on the Road Map included: champions at both the leadership and staff levels; use of participatory processes; motivation driven by ecosystem shocks and threats; and leveraging existing processes and frameworks. The updated EBFM Road Map supports historic and ongoing efforts to implement U.S. laws through improved coordination, integration, and knowledge exchange and can help to address many urgent challenges facing U.S. marine fisheries, habitats, and protected resources.

Objective Management of most fisheries is currently based on single species, so multispecies interactions often constrain fishing, leading to suboptimal yields or overfishing. Ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) uses a more holistic approach to resource access or allocation and takes advantage of multispecies interactions to spread risk and achieve target yields. Portfolio theory is a commonly applied financial tool that considers covariance between assets in an investment portfolio to reduce the risk of achieving economic return targets. This method can be adapted to EBFM for balancing risk with expected benefits for a portfolio of species' revenue. Portfolio management considers species interdependencies (covariance in revenue time series), uncertainty, and sustainability constraints.Methods We demonstrate how to apply economic frontier analysis using publicly available landings and revenue data from commercial fisheries and calculate the risk gap between historic portfolios and the EBFM frontier to assess past fishery performance. We identify data challenges and offer guidance on practical decisions for applying portfolio analysis to derive annual efficient frontiers (trade-offs between revenue risk and return) and demonstrate the sensitivity of frontiers to these data decisions and model parameters.Results In accordance with previous portfolio analyses, results show that the multispecies portfolio approach outperformed single-species management and there was forgone revenue for the associated risk taken in the single-species approach.Conclusions These demonstrations as well as guidance on data and analysis are intended to facilitate broader evaluation and application of multispecies fishery management and portfolio theory to fisheries. A multispecies portfolio approach outperforms single-species management by reducing risk of forgone revenue or increasing revenue for the same risk level. We provide guidance for developing efficient frontiers.

Marine ecosystem-based management (EBM) is globally acknowledged as the best practice to manage resources and mitigate multi-sector conflict in the multiple uses of ocean resources, yet EBM is not being implemented or executed at a level that is necessary to effect significant and positive changes in marine ecosystems. Furthermore, continuation of business-as-usual (BAU) approaches to dealing with ocean-uses and marine ecosystem impacts, instead of EBM, may mean missing out on significant ecological, social, and economic benefits. One way to advance beyond BAU approaches to managing marine ecosystems and their uses is establishing a solid business case for EBM. Here we present a business case for EBM with the goal of showing that EBM is not only ecologically preferable but also economically advantageous compared to BAU. We present four case studies with estimates of the value proposition for conducting BAU and EBM in these instances. Categorically EBM has a stronger business case than BAU. In all the cases, even given the caveats of the methodology and precision of the estimates, EBM was cheaper, more efficient, was better able to handle tradeoffs across ocean-use sectors, better accommodated non-economic and non-human commerce considerations, and provided more benefits. Conversely, BAU was costlier than EBM options. We trust that these reality-based, hypothetical examples at least broaden the discussion of moving towards EBM and assert that they provide evidence to further support the broader consideration and adoption of EBM, or at least should spark discussion as to why not.

Marine ecosystem-based management (EBM) is recognized as the best practice for managing multiple ocean-use sectors, explicitly addressing tradeoffs among them. However, implementation is perceived as challenging and often slow. A poll of over 150 international EBM experts revealed progress, challenges, and solutions in EBM implementation worldwide. Subsequent follow-up discussions with over 40 of these experts identified remaining impediments to further implementation of EBM: governance; stakeholder engagement; support; uncertainty about and understanding of EBM; technology and data; communication and marketing. EBM is often portrayed as too complex or too challenging to be fully implemented, but we report that identifiable and achievable solutions exist (e.g., political will, persistence, capacity building, changing incentives, and strategic marketing of EBM), for most of these challenges and some solutions can solve many impediments simultaneously. Furthermore, we are advancing in key components of EBM by practitioners who may not necessarily realize they are doing so under different paradigms. These findings indicate substantial progress on EBM, more than previously reported.

FisheriesEarly View Column Fishy Identity Jason Link, Corresponding Author Jason Link [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0003-2740-7161 National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water St, Woods Hole, MA, 02543 USASearch for more papers by this author Jason Link, Corresponding Author Jason Link [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0003-2740-7161 National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water St, Woods Hole, MA, 02543 USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 03 April 2024 https://doi.org/10.1002/fsh.11087Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue RelatedInformation

Effective management of ocean resources is crucial for achieving desired ecological, economic, and social outcomes. Marine ecosystem-based management (EBM) offers a comprehensive approach to achieve these goals, yet its implementation has been challenging and its effectiveness has been unclear. Therefore, we need performance measures to assess the effectiveness of EBM strategies. We developed a semi-quantitative assessment framework using existing indicators and performance measures from the business and project management world (e.g. Key Performance Indicators; KPIs), national and regional economic and social wellbeing performance measures (e.g. GDP, food security), and ecosystem status assessments (e.g. overfishing, biodiversity) to evaluate the success and performance of EBM outcomes. The framework consists of four main categories: (1) sector performance; (2) marine ecosystem status; (3) management and tradeoffs; and (4) human dimensions, each flexible enough to accommodate suitable indicators and reference points. We show how the framework responds to real case studies from Southern New England, the Gulf of Maine, and the Hawaiian Islands, USA; the Baltic Sea; and the Red Sea, Saudi Arabia. The main observation from these performance measures is that higher scores in the management and tradeoffs consideration correlate with higher scores in the marine ecosystem status. Additionally, higher human dimensions scores tend to lead to higher sectoral performance scores. Although it is not certain that one leads to the other, this suggests that EBM is functioning as intended. The framework results show that there are many possible indicators, performance targets, and associated desired directionalities that can be combined to form possible performance measures across combined ocean-use sectors to inform EBM. The challenge lies in using these different operational indicators to assess the strengths and weaknesses of EBM approaches.

There are few generalizable patterns in ecology, with widespread observations and predictability. One possible generalizable pattern is the cumulative trophic theory, which consistently exhibits S-curves of cumulative biomass over trophic level (TL) for over 200 different marine ecosystems. But whether those cumulative biomass patterns persist in some of the more distinct marine ecosystems, coral reefs, is unclear. Coral reefs are unique among marine ecosystems, representing global biodiversity hotspots and providing crucial ecosystem services. They are subject to many pressures, including both global (e.g., climate and ocean changes, warming, acidification) and local (e.g., overexploitation/overfishing, increase in turbidity, bleaching, habitat destruction, invasive species) stressors. The analysis of emergent ecosystem features, such as cumulative biomass S-curves, could represent a useful and new analytical option that can also be implemented for coral reefs. The cumulative biomass approach was applied to 42 U.S. Pacific islands (Guam and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, the Pacific Remote Islands Areas, and the Northwestern and Main Hawaiian Islands), using data collected from fish surveys. Results show that coral reef ecosystems do indeed follow the S-curve patterns expected from cumulative trophic theory, which is not trivial for tropical reef systems that tend to be less widely examined and strongly dominated by structuring organisms like corals. The curve parameters results are also consistent with both fish assemblage diversity indexes and the benthic substrate ratio, which suggests this measure could serve as a useful ecosystem indicator to measure the ecological status of reefs. Moreover, the curve shape was consistent with what one would expect for different levels of perturbation, with the areas more densely inhabited showing less pronounced S-curves, in contrast to those observed in low human population density islands. All this is reflected in the curve parameters, particularly inflection point of the TL and steepness, generally showing a negative response to both natural and anthropogenic disturbances. Cross-archipelago differences have also been detected with the Hawaiian Island chain tending to have lower inflection points for biomass and TL than other regions. Collectively our findings demonstrate the potential application of the cumulative biomass approach to evaluate coral reef ecosystems.

Sometimes in this profession you end up in some pretty big and serious meetings that I'm not sure graduate school entirely prepares you for, particularly when there is an international element and a bit of diplomacy involved. It is amazing how all over the world, most of us working in fisheries can find ready camaraderie with fellow scientists, fisheries managers, fishermen, and all those involved in our profession. It is also amazing how sometimes these events can go sideways pretty quickly, and not everything proceeds as one would expect. One time, I was part of bilateral delegation with our Norwegian counterparts. We were discussing a full range of fisheries science and living marine resource management issues that were of mutual interest to both countries. The head of our delegation, one of my boss' bosses, didn't quite fully get the pre-briefing and somehow missed the memo when she asked the room, "So, would you all in Norway be interested in working on protected species issues with us? For example, on organisms like whales?" Which was followed by deafening silence as many of us, I suppose based upon which country we were from, either bit our tongues or suppressed snickers. A lot of people were looking at their shoes. In case you didn't know it, there are a couple of countries that have not signed on to the international whaling ban via the International Whaling Commission. Norway is one of them, particularly for the abundant minke whales. Finally, after a very painful pause, one of the Norwegians, who looked like he could have come straight from a Viking ship or at least a Viking movie, said in heavily accented English, but not accented enough to mask the wryness in his voice, said, "Madame, in Norway, we eat whales." The suppressions of laughter grew harder and slightly more audible, as did eyes boring into shoes. Norwegian snickering: +1; American embarrassment: +11. Then the number two of our delegation shouted, "Mackerel. How about mackerel? Or cod?" I thought he said, "Mackerel, holy mackerel, Oh my God" at first, which didn't help. He kept going, "We have similar interests for those fish." His decidedly un-apoplectic manner was both serious, but at the same time further exacerbated the attempts to stifle what was turning into a growing swell of hushed laughter. Norwegian snickering: still +1; American snickering: starting. Then the head of our delegation noted, "Well, what about turtles?" That was funny and we thought she was joking, since although they are protected species as well, but they don't exactly make it to sub-Arctic waters off of Norway. But clearly, she wasn't joking. Again, after a pause, our Viking friend calmly reminded everyone of the geographic distribution of sea turtles. "Well, there is climate change," she retorted. Norwegian snickering: +2; American snickering: +1. Then the guy on my left quietly whispered to me, "And we might as well throw in puffins. I hear they're good to eat." The guy on my right heard it and chimed in, "And don't forget seaweed garnished with myctophids and copepods as a starter salad." Let me just say, upon hearing those remarks I had a hard time not falling out of my chair. Trying to maintain the decorum necessary for such an international situation was no small feat. Norwegian snickering: +1; American snickering: +3. We eventually recovered after that moment passed and were able to complete the meeting. But I didn't envy our delegation's number two for the tongue-lashing we saw him get as we walked by a private room that he and the delegation head were in after the meeting. Something about not getting the memo was clearly heard… Later on, after we finished the formal session, we caught up with our Norwegian counterparts at a mixer and talked about it, a bit bashful at our mishandling of the whale situation. They had a good laugh, we had a good laugh, and we all laughed off the situation. We connected through the laughter, and the humor diffused what could have been a tough diplomatic situation. So, what do you do if your boss doesn't quite get up to speed on a pre-briefing set of materials? I advise grace all the way around. Such leaders often have so much information coming at them that it's hard to keep it straight sometimes. But the other lesson learned from this situation is to be sure to pass along a memo and then be doubly sure to follow it up to verify that it has been received and is generally understood. If need be, trying to help bail them out, as our number two attempted, is also gracious. And being gentle but firm in maintaining the facts, as our Viking colleague did, is also a form of being helpful and kind. Conversely, as many of you dear readers progress in your career, you might find yourself as the head of such a delegation at some point. In that case, the lessons here are to realize you can't know everything about everything, your past experiences may or may not translate to the new situation, trust your people, and try to prepare as much as you can before going into meetings. But most of all, wherever one is at in one's career, keep it all in perspective, work with your counterparts, and know there is usually time to sort things out over a beverage and a chuckle. … until next month.

Fisheries management has focused on single stocks, not directly accounting for species interactions, and usually only considering economic factors in post hoc analysis. This approach has been successfully applied for many species over many years, but may also inadvertently result in greater risks being incurred. We demonstrate a portfolio optimization approach to inform a broader set of fishery concerns as a way to emphasize species interactions and economic considerations in resource management decision making. The approach can use readily available data on landings and revenue to generate easily digestible indicators of risk, namely the risk gap (i.e., the difference between actual and optimal portfolio values). Herein, we calculate portfolio efficiency frontiers that minimize risk for target revenue outcomes and resulting risk gaps for commercial fisheries using the top 25 landed-value species in six U.S. fisheries regions. Most regions exhibited a risk gap on the order of US$20-50 million, collectively on average over $250 million. Risk gaps can be used as ecosystem-level indicators to inform managers of the unnecessary risk being assumed for a given level of revenue for a portfolio of fisheries stocks, which can move us towards operational ecosystem-based fisheries management.

FisheriesVolume 49, Issue 3 p. 146-146 Column: Fish Tails Elbows Over Arse Jason Link, Corresponding Author Jason Link [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0003-2740-7161 National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water St, Woods Hole, MA, 02543 USASearch for more papers by this author Jason Link, Corresponding Author Jason Link [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0003-2740-7161 National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water St, Woods Hole, MA, 02543 USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 30 January 2024 https://doi.org/10.1002/fsh.11063Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume49, Issue3March 2024Pages 146-146 RelatedInformation

FisheriesVolume 49, Issue 4 p. 158-158 Magazine Ummm, your Computer's on Fire Jason Link, Corresponding Author Jason Link [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0003-2740-7161 National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water St, Woods Hole, MA, 02543 USASearch for more papers by this author Jason Link, Corresponding Author Jason Link [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0003-2740-7161 National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water St, Woods Hole, MA, 02543 USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 18 March 2024 https://doi.org/10.1002/fsh.11081Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume49, Issue4April 2024Pages 158-158 RelatedInformation

Why is what we call a fish so confusing? It seems to me that sometimes in the sciences, as much as we try to be descriptive, precise, direct, clear, and accurate, sometimes we don't always say exactly what we mean. When we interact with the broader public and their more common vernacular (and common names for organisms), forget it. What we say and what we mean and what others think we mean can get pretty discombobulated pretty fast. How can we get back to being combobulated when there is so much confusion over what exactly is a fish, let alone how we describe their characteristics? This is all true for those of us working in the fisheries profession. Did you know that silverfish are actually an insect? Or that jellyfish are actually a gooey invertebrate (mainly Cnidarians or else Ctenophores or Siphonophores [and even here, we use extra "C's" that are silent to confuse things]). Or that shellfish are really just mollusks, unless they are crustaceans, but neither are really fish. Or that starfish are actually, well, a starfish, or more technically asteroids (as in an echinoderm, not the rocky space debris hiding the Millenium Falcon). Or that cuttlefish are basically squids with a Napoleon complex. And that dolphins are not actually a fish, unless you mean dolphinfish (Coryphaenids). So maybe some of those are common language holdovers from sailors in centuries past who classified just about anything from the ocean that moved as a type of fish (except for seals, whom they called mermaids, but that's another column entirely). Still, those names have stuck around even if a bit taxonomically challenged. And let's think about fish color for a moment. Take red-fish, generically speaking. Fish such as various species of Sebastes or Lutjanus or Sciaenops or in the Trachichthyidae family. There are numerous species among those fish that have some variant of "red" in their common name. But when you look at them, at least a third or more are actually not red. And the Orange Roughy Hoplostethus atlanticus are actually more redish, just saying. At least blue-fish are blue, except for then they're not and they're more silverish or greenish-yellow. And the Yellowbar Angelfish Pomacanthus maculosus is actually mostly blue. There sure does seem to be a lot of confusion, or perhaps even color-blindness. Thank Carl Linnaeus (the patron saint of taxonomists, college Botany, and 9th grade Latin) that we have the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS; https://www.itis.gov/), a cadre of professional taxonomists and ichthyologists, and especially the AFS Committee on Names of Fishes which periodically produces the book, Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Though I am sure that they, and hopefully nearly all readers of Fisheries magazine, can tell you what a fish truly is, we still seem to have some challenges when it comes to common names. Despite the definitive clarity that the binomial nomenclature these professional namers and classifiers have given us for scientific names of fishes, that hasn't always caught on and is often difficult to translate to the general public we have to deal with. Hence, confusion remains. So, what does it matter? Ummm, probably not that much. I bet you didn't expect that plot twist (if there can be such a thing in a ~750 word column). At the end of the day, ultimately, who cares what people call fish as long as they call them something? At least fish are not being mostly ignored, unlike silverfish or siphonophores. I mean, binomial nomenclature was designed to avoid confusion, and largely the technical applications in fisheries have used the Latin names to great effect, so us professionals mostly have it figured out when it comes to calling fish particular names… mostly. But there is the formal, technical utility of scientifically naming things, and then there is the common vernacular usage. And that the two don't always agree is not surprising nor really that big of a deal. Dealing with the public, being aware of popular opinion, respecting local traditions, and acknowledging common understanding and terminology may not be technically correct, but dealing with the public and their perception is all part of being a fisheries professional. So, maybe instead of us fisheries pros getting worked up about the specific accuracy of fish names when dealing with those generally interested in fishes, we simply acknowledge that we generally know what they're referring to. Unless we truly need to clarify, or we really just feel like flexing and want to drop an Oncorhynchus mykiss on someone and ask 'em what color it is. This month's column was brought to you by the TLAA (taxonomic lumpers association of America, not to be confused with a TLA)… until next month.