Evidence Project Final Report - GOV.UKrandd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=11611_MF1004... · EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 3 of 31 concentrations of

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 1 of 31

General Enquiries on the form should be made to:

Defra, Procurements and Commercial Function (Evidence Procurement Team) E-mail: [email protected]

Evidence Project Final Report

Note

In line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Defra aims to place the results of its completed research projects in the public domain wherever possible. The Evidence Project Final Report is designed to capture the information on the results and outputs of Defra-funded research in a format that is easily publishable through the Defra website An Evidence Project Final Report must be completed for all projects.

This form is in Word format and the boxes may be expanded, as appropriate.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

The information collected on this form will be stored electronically and may be sent to any part of Defra, or to individual researchers or organisations outside Defra for the purposes of reviewing the project. Defra may also disclose the information to any outside organisation acting as an agent authorised by Defra to process final research reports on its behalf. Defra intends to publish this form on its website, unless there are strong reasons not to, which fully comply with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Defra may be required to release information, including personal data and commercial information, on request under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, Defra will not permit any unwarranted breach of confidentiality or act in contravention of its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Defra or its appointed agents may use the name, address or other details on your form to contact you in connection with occasional customer research aimed at improving the processes through which Defra works with its contractors.

Project identification

1. Defra Project code MF1004

2. Project title

Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems in the NAFO Regulatory Area

3. Contractor organisation(s)

CEFAS

54. Total Defra project costs £159,991

(agreed fixed price)

5. Project: start date ................ 6/1/2009

end date ................. 31/3/2011

mailto:[email protected]


6. It is Defra’s intention to publish this form.

Please confirm your agreement to do so. ................................................................................... YES NO

(a) When preparing Evidence Project Final Reports contractors should bear in mind that Defra intends that they be made public. They should be written in a clear and concise manner and represent a full account of the research project which someone not closely associated with the project can follow.

Defra recognises that in a small minority of cases there may be information, such as intellectual property or commercially confidential data, used in or generated by the research project, which should not be disclosed. In these cases, such information should be detailed in a separate annex (not to be published) so that the Evidence Project Final Report can be placed in the public domain. Where it is impossible to complete the Final Report without including references to any sensitive or confidential data, the information should be included and section (b) completed. NB: only in exceptional circumstances will Defra expect contractors to give a "No" answer.

In all cases, reasons for withholding information must be fully in line with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

(b) If you have answered NO, please explain why the Final report should not be released into public domain

Executive Summary

7. The executive summary must not exceed 2 sides in total of A4 and should be understandable to the intelligent non-scientist. It should cover the main objectives, methods and findings of the research, together with any other significant events and options for new work.

The identification of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) is an important aspect of each Regional Fisheries Management Organisation’s (RFMO) compliance with the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 61/105 and the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) Deep-Sea Fisheries Guidelines. Compliance with these instruments involves a reduction in fishing methods that cause significant adverse impacts (SAI) upon VMEs and provides the basis for RFMOs to adopt the enforcement of more sustainable fisheries practices in the high seas whilst minimising impacts on deep-sea ecosystems.

The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) – the RFMO responsible for the northwest Atlantic – agreed to strengthen its commitment to an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. As a result, the Spanish Government (who have traditionally fished in the NAFO regulatory area) announced its intention to start the programme by leading a research expedition, starting in 2009 and finishing in 2010, to map the potential VMEs that exist in the NAFO Regulatory Area (NRA) at depths shallower than 2,000 m. The Canadian and British Governments both agreed to support the initiative, which became known as the NEREIDA programme (NAFO potEntial vulneRable marine Ecosystems – Impacts of Deep-seA fisheries).

Defra approved a contract with the following 3 main objectives:

1. To map potential VMEs which may occur in the NAFO Regulatory Area at depths less than 2,000 m.

2. To study the distribution of fishing effort in the NAFO Regulatory Area.

3. To propose the closure of sensitive bottom areas based upon best known scientific advice.

The Spanish NEREIDA surveys adopted a multidisciplinary approach to gather acoustic multibeam and seismic profile data for the seabed immediately adjacent to the limit of Canada’s 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), between 700 m and 2,000 m depth. In addition, ground-truthing samples were taken which also targeted benthic infauna and epifauna. Water column characteristics were also measured. These surveys were supplemented by Canadian led surveys, which gathered photographic and video data from the seabed.

Outputs so far have provided a valuable addition to existing knowledge from the area. These include: (i) a new classification of geological features in the survey area, (ii) a list of organisms that are indicative of VMEs based on their rarity, life history traits, sensitivity and vulnerability to disturbance by fishing, (iii) maps illustrating the historical fishing effort in the survey area, (iv) maps highlighting areas of increased


concentrations of VME indicative organisms, (v) recommendations on the continued closure of areas specifically set up to exclude bottom contact fishing gears, and (vi) peer-reviewed publications that disseminate the programme’s findings.

The three main objectives of this project have been systematically addressed and successfully achieved. Organisms and habitats indicative of VMEs have been identified and their distribution mapped within the fishing footprint of the NAFO regulatory area (Objective 1). Fishing effort has been quantified and mapped to assess which areas with high concentrations of sensitive organisms are indeed vulnerable to the direct and indirect effects of fishing with bottom contact gear (Objective 2). Conservation and enforcement measures have been applied in the form of exclusion areas which are closed to bottom contact fishing gear (Objective 3), coinciding with areas of relatively high concentrations of VME indicative organisms (e.g. sponges and corals).

Cefas’ participation in the NEREIDA programme has been instrumental in achieving these objectives. It has also enabled the expansion of Cefas’ capability and expertise in the field of deep sea ecology, with valuable benefits to continuing our role as important contributors to shaping the ecosystem approach to environmental and fisheries management. The potential for further work is highlighted, as this would complement existing knowledge and would guarantee the full potential and return from the investment already made, especially as many of the quantitative biological datasets are yet to be explored in detail.

Project Report to Defra

8. As a guide this report should be no longer than 20 sides of A4. This report is to provide Defra with details of the outputs of the research project for internal purposes; to meet the terms of the contract; and to allow Defra to publish details of the outputs to meet Environmental Information Regulation or Freedom of Information obligations. This short report to Defra does not preclude contractors from also seeking to publish a full, formal scientific report/paper in an appropriate scientific or other journal/publication. Indeed, Defra actively encourages such publications as part of the contract terms. The report to Defra should include:

the objectives as set out in the contract;

the extent to which the objectives set out in the contract have been met;

details of methods used and the results obtained, including statistical analysis (if appropriate);

a discussion of the results and their reliability;

the main implications of the findings;

possible future work; and

any action resulting from the research (e.g. IP, Knowledge Exchange).

The project report to Defra is appended below this page. The final page of this form is at the end of the project report.


Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) in the NAFO Regulatory Area (NRA)

1. Introduction

1.1. Regulatory context

The identification of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) is an important aspect of each Regional Fisheries Management Organisation’s (RFMO) compliance. In 2008, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) General Council discussed various agreements, conventions and other instruments that required NAFO to strengthen its commitment to an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. Specifically, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 61/105 and the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) Deep-Sea Fisheries Guidelines were published in 2007 and 2008 respectively, calling for, inter alia, a reduction in fishing methods that cause significant adverse impacts (SAI) upon VMEs. These two documents provided the basis for RFMOs to adopt enforcement measures by 31 December 2008 to ensure sustainable fisheries practices in the high seas whilst minimising impacts on deep-sea ecosystems.

In addition, UNGA Res. 61/222 – which arose mainly from the 1992 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) – also published in 2007 calls for biodiversity conservation in the marine environment through the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). This resolution reaffirms “the need for States to continue their efforts to develop and facilitate the use of diverse approaches and tools for conserving and managing VMEs, including the possible establishment of MPAs, consistent with international law and based on the best scientific information available, and the development of representative networks of any such MPAa by 2012” [Para. 97] as well as calling upon States and international organisations “to urgently take action to address, in accordance with international law, destructive practices that have adverse impacts on marine biodiversity and ecosystems, including seamounts, hydrothermal vents and cold water corals [Para 101].

To enable NAFO to respond effectively to UNGA Res. 61/105, the NAFO Scientific Council (SC) established in 2008 an Expert Working Group on the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (WGEAFM). WGEAFM in its first meeting in May 2008 mapped the distribution of areas with high abundance of corals and sponges using best available information, with the aim of establishing candidate areas for VMEs, but the assessment was only provisional and acknowledged the limitations in the data available at the time. Accordingly, the Spanish Government announced at the NAFO annual meeting in September 2008 its intention to lead a research expedition called NEREIDA (NAFO potEntial vulneRable marine Ecosystems – Impacts of Deep-seA fisheries)., starting in 2009 and finishing in 2010, to map the potential VMEs that exist in the NAFO Regulatory Area (NRA) at depths shallower than 2,000 m. The Spanish requested international collaboration to ensure the results would be widely and independently recognised. As a result the Canadian and British Governments both agreed to support the NEREIDA programme.

1.2. Project objectives

To support the NERIEDA programme Defra approved a contract with the following 3 main objectives: • To map potential VMEs which may occur in the NAFO Regulatory Area at depths less than 2,000 m. • To study the distribution of fishing effort in the NAFO Regulatory Area. • To propose the closure of sensitive bottom areas based upon best known scientific advice.


1.3. Ecological context

Despite their name, VMEs are not whole ecosystems; for the most part VMEs are subcomponents of a larger ecosystem which can be associated with a precise geographical location or geological formation. VMEs are typically expected to have some degree of internal homogeneity, consisting of ecotopes and/or biotopes, but their actual geographical extent is variable and they can also encompass multiple ecotopes/biotopes (e.g. seamounts).

The FAO guidelines for the management of deep-sea fisheries in the high seas indicate five criteria that should be used to identify VMEs. These criteria are:

1. Uniqueness or rarity – an area or ecosystem that is unique or that contains rare species whose loss could not be compensated for by other similar areas. These include: • habitats that contain endemic species; • habitats of rare, threatened or endangered species that occur only in discrete areas; or • nurseries or discrete feeding, breeding, or spawning areas.

2. Functional significance of the habitat – discrete areas or habitats that are necessary for the survival, function, spawning/reproduction or recovery of fish stocks, particular life-history stages (e.g. nursery grounds or rearing areas), or of rare, threatened or endangered marine species.

3. Fragility – an ecosystem that is highly susceptible to degradation by anthropogenic activities.

4. Life-history traits of component species that make recovery difficult – ecosystems that are characterized by populations or assemblages of species with one or more of the following characteristics: • slow growth rates; • late age of maturity; • low or unpredictable recruitment; or • long-lived.

5. Structural complexity – an ecosystem that is characterized by complex physical structures created by significant concentrations of biotic and abiotic features. In these ecosystems, ecological processes are usually highly dependent on these structured systems. Further, such ecosystems often have high diversity, which is dependent on the structuring organisms.

These criteria are not restrictive; FAO guidelines clearly state that they can be expanded and/or adapted for their application in specific cases. For example, certain geological and topographical features, such as seamounts and canyons, are known to support vulnerable species, communities or habitats and therefore qualify as VME indicators. However, sessile and very low mobility organisms (e.g. corals, sponges, bivalves) are expected to play a more central role in the process of identifying VMEs compared with motile species such as fish, due to their very close association with VME habitat features. Some fish species do have restricted and specific habitat preferences which therefore makes them potentially useful indicators of VMEs.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Research vessel bottom-trawl surveys

The identification of potential VMEs included a review of existing literature and datasets which were largely based upon research vessel bottom-trawl surveys of by-catch species (see below):

• Maritimes Observer Data (1977-2007) • Newfoundland Trawl Survey (1995-2004) • Spanish/EU Bottom Trawl Groundfish Surveys (areas 3LMNO) (2005-2007) • Russian observer data (2000-2007) (in Vinnichenko and Skylar, 2008)


By analysing the trawl survey results using a combination of the VMS and log book data, along with the trawl composition, it was possible to estimate the density of sponge and seapen on the seabed – albeit with errors associated less than the assumed 100% catch efficiency and loss of catch during hauling etc. Nevertheless, the error was assumed to be constant between survey trawls so a consistent density layer of sponge and seapen could be generated. It is hoped that more detailed and standard statistical approaches (e.g. k-means cluster analysis) can be applied to the quantitative data from the box core samples in due course. For a more detailed description of trawl data processing methods please refer to Kenchington et al (2009) and Murillo et al (2010).

However, the data from these sources was known to be incomplete and to contain inconsistencies in the identification and recording of by-catch species, including their volumes and/or weights. Furthermore, very little evidence was available from these surveys to assess the physical characteristics of the seabed at a spatial resolution sufficient for habitat management purposes. Therefore a systematic and quantitative series of surveys was undertaken in 2009 and 2010 aboard the Research Vessel Miguel Oliver (Secretaría General del Mar, Spain). These surveys were supplemented by Canadian led surveys aboard the RV Hudson. The data collected aboard the RV Miguel Oliver included 100% coverage of acoustic multibeam and seismic profile data for the seabed immediately adjacent to the limit of Canada’s 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), between 700 m and 2,000 m depth. In addition, groundtruthing samples were taken using a combination of a mega-box corer (targeting benthic infauna) and a rock dredge (targeting epifauna). Water column characteristics were measured at every groundtruthing station. Mega-box core sediment samples were also subsampled for stratigraphic, granulometric and geochemical analyses. Specific methods of sampling associated with these multidisciplinary surveys are described below:

2.2. Physical characteristics including seabed geology

Geophysical and bathymetric data were acquired from the Canadian continental shelf during six cruises of the RV Miguel Oliver conducted during the summer months of 2009 and 2010. Navigation data were acquired using differential GPS and the aid of a Seapath inertial system. Two hull-mounted systems were used, a Kongsberg-Simrad EM 302 multibeam swath-bathymetry system and Topographic Parametric Sonar (TOPAS) PS 18 sub-bottom profiler. The EM 302 swath bathymetric system emits up 288 beams/432 soundings per swath, each with a frequency of 30 kHz and a maximum port- and starboard-side angle of 75°. This echosounder could reach a total swath width up 5 times water depth. Swath data were processed through the removal of anomalous pings and gridded at cell sizes of 50 m using Kongsberg-Simrad NEPTUNE software. The processed data were placed in a Geographic Information System (ArcGIS) for latter analysis and interpretation.

Seismic data were collected using the TOPAS system which uses parametric interference between primary waves to produce a secondary acoustic beam of narrow width and a frequency range of 0.5 to 5 kHz. It is used to profile the upper layers of the sub-sea floor at high vertical resolution (i.e. to <1 m). The locations of the seismic lines were projected over the multibeam map with the aid of a GIS, and the images of the seismic lines were associated to the projected position lines.

A Conductivity, Temperature, Depth SBE 25 SEALOGGER probe (CTD) was deployed at each box core station to measure salinity, temperature, pressure, fluorescence and oxygen content continuously from the surface to the bottom. The SBE 25’s scan rate of 8 Hz provided fine-scale vertical depth profile measurements.

2.3. Biological samples

For hard seabed bottom types (compacted sands, gravels and rock) a rock dredge was deployed, which consisted of a rectangular metal collar, coupled with a coarse mesh net protected by a rubber mat (Figure 1). The device is towed for approximately 1 km along the seabed allowing the rectangular metal mouth of the dig into the substrate, parts of which are then retained in the sample net. The towing speed is between 2 and 3 knots.


(c)

Figure 1. Rock dredge (left), Box Core (middle) and box core geochemical sub-sample (right).

Quantitative sampling of soft sediment habitats was undertaken using a mega-box corer (sampling area: 0.25 m

2; Figure 1). Once on deck, mega-box core samples were drained of excess surface water before describing

the undisturbed surface of the sample. Sediment temperature was measured at approximately 5 cm depth, as well as pore-water conductivity. Conspicuous epifaunal organisms were collected for identification prior to the removal of sediment subsamples for particle size distribution analysis (PSA) and geochemical processing (Figure 1). After the removal of all subsamples, the top 5 cm of the remaining sediment was washed with seawater over a 0.5 mm mesh sieve to extract the infauna. All remaining sediment from the corer was washed separately and material retained on the sieve kept for future inspection. All biological material was fixed in 4% buffered formalin and transported to the laboratory for processing.

2.4. Fishing effort

Spatial fishing effort within the NRA was determined using commercial fishing vessel positions contained in the VMS database covering the period 2008 to 2010 held at the NAFO Secretariat headquarters. Further detail on how these data have been handled can be found in Cogswell et al. (2011).

3. Results

3.1. Physical characteristics and seabed geology

Geologists working on the NEREIDA project completed a classification of the geological features of the surveyed area. A classification has been proposed and mapped (Figure 2), which is intended to provide a summary of the geological context for interpreting the biological data derived from box core and rock dredge samples. The classification does not itself take into account factors such as water depth, local gradient, bottom-water temperature or bottom sediment type. However, many of the meso-topographic features may have a local influence on near-bed circulation patterns and variations in sediment type.


FlemishCap

GrandBanks

Figure 2. Distribution of classified meso-topographic features covering the area mapped during the RV Miguel Oliver cruises in 2009 and 2010.

The classification is based primarily on the interpretation of multibeam bathymetric data and TOPAS sub-bottom profiler data, with backscatter data used locally over hard substrate. The majority of the soft sediment features occur in the northern parts of the Flemish Cap, whereas southern parts of the Flemish Cap and along the south-eastern slopes of the Grand Banks are characterised by steep flanks, gullies and canyons. Fifteen canyons occur along the continental shelf edge in the NRA, with the highest density along the eastern edge of the southern Grand Bank (Figure 3). For the purposes of this exercise, the 200 m isobath was used to delineate the upper limit of the canyons found in the NRA, while the lower limit, though variable, was determined by the 2,000 m isobath. A distinction was made between canyons which were shelf-indenting (i.e. canyons with heads that indent the shelf of the Grand Banks) and canyons with heads at >400 m water depth (i.e. on the upper slope).


Figure 3. Map of canyons in the NRA (Divs. 3LMNO). These include(listed from west to east): Desbarres Canyon (inside Canadian EEZ), Treworgie Canyon (inside Canadian EEZ), Jukes Canyon, Whitbourne Canyon, Denys Canyon, unnamed canyon one, Cameron Canyon, Jackman Canyon, unnamed canyon two, Guy Canyon, Hoyles Canyon, unnamed canyon three, Kettle Canyon, unnamed canyon four, Clifford Smith Canyon, Lilly Canyon, and Carson Canyon. From Murillo et al. (2011a)

3.2. Trawl surveys

Trawl samples were acquired to identify, describe, quantify and map epifaunal organisms likely to represent VMEs. The results clearly indicated the large degree of clumping of VME indicator species and this clumping was used to define the most significant concentrations of VME for a give area (see to Kenchington et al. 2009, and Murillo et al. 2010).

Corals and their allies (Cnidaria)

Corals are important structural habitats that increase the availability of microhabitats. Increased habitat complexity provides opportunities for motile aggregating species, such as feeding grounds, a hiding place from predators, a nursery area for juvenile fish, spawning aggregation sites and substrate for attachment of fish egg cases and sedentary invertebrates. Coral habitats in deep water represent biodiversity hotspots for invertebrates and commonly support a large abundance of fish.

The FAO guidelines recognise that not all coral species are indicative of VMEs. In identifying coral VME components, the size, structural complexity, gregariousness, fragility, vulnerability to fishing gears, rarity,


longevity, role in the ecosystem (associated species, biodiversity) and international recognition of status must be considered. These are documented in the supporting publication (Fuller et al., 2008). Therefore the following coral taxa are considered indicators and key components of VMEs in the NRA:

• Antipatharians (black corals) • Gorgonians (sea whips and fans) • Cerianthid fields (tube anemones) • Lophelia (reef building corals) • Pennatulacea (sea pens)

Black corals meet the vulnerability and recoverability criteria for vulnerable marine ecosystems as described in the FAO Guidelines. However, because they are solitary and rare they are thought to have little impact on ecosystem functioning. They are broadly distributed at low density in the northwest Atlantic and therefore do not meet all of the necessary criteria to be indicative of VMEs. If they were removed from the fishing footprint of the NRA they would still persist along the continental slopes of Canada.

Figure 4 illustrates the records of black corals recorded in every 10 x 10 nautical mile cell recorded by Spanish/EU groundfish surveys (2006-2010), the NEREIDA Project (2009-2010) and NEREIDA-Canadian 2010 ROPOS survey. While broadly distributed, black corals are more prevalent in four areas (coloured red). These higher density areas could be considered for protection given the iconic nature of these species and their life-history traits.

Figure 4. Map of black coral record density in the NRA (Divs. 3LMNO). From Murillo et al. (2011a)

Sea pens can be over 1.5 m long with larger species living up to 50 yrs. The extensive aggregations formed by some species, known as sea pen fields, are recognized as ecologically and biologically significant habitats. Aggregations of sea pens may provide important structure in low-relief sand and mud habitats where there is little physical habitat complexity. They may also alter water current flow, thereby retaining nutrients and entraining plankton near the sediment, as well as provide refuge for small planktonic and benthic


invertebrates, which in turn may be preyed upon by fish. Sea pens belong to the Initial OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats.

An analysis of the survey vessel bottom trawl by-catch data indicates that the largest increase in area associated with sea pens occurs between catches of 0.5 and 0.1 kg. This coincides with an area of 8,484 km

2

for the 0.5 kg by-catch threshold and a 33,053 km2 for the 0.1 kg by-catch. Consequently the 0.5 kg weight

threshold could be considered as a good indicator of the higher concentrations of sea pens in the study area. The location of the catches from the NRA (excluding the catches within Canada’s EEZ) and their associated weight is illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Significant sea pen locations (≥0.5 kg/trawl) in the NRA (Divs 3LMNO) derived from a spatial density analysis of RV bottom trawl data. Yellow dots represent catches higher than 1.6 kg (threshold obtained from the cumulative curve distribution, NAFO 2008a, b). Green dots represent catches below 0.5 kg. Black crosses represent catches without sea pen records. From Murillo et al. (2011b).

Sponges

In the Northwest Atlantic there are more than 300 sponge species, ranging in form from thin and encrusting to branching and mound forming. Species belonging to all three sponge classes Calcarea (calcareous), Demospongiae (siliceous) and Hexactinellida (glass sponges) are found in the NAFO Convention Area (NCA). The WGDEC report (ICES, 2008) states that there is little reported information on sponges in the Northwest Atlantic, so the data and information collected as part of the NEREIDA programme adds significantly to the sponge distribution records in this area.

Sponges, particularly those of large size, are known to be habitat forming structures, often with numerous other species living within and around their body structures. The extent to which an individual sponge can act as a host for other species is dependent on sponge surface characteristics, size of pores, and the size of the sponge itself. Sponge volume can be considered a proxy for both habitat size and age. An increase in associated species richness with host volume has been found in sponges.

Sponges are widespread throughout all depths and bottom types in the Northwest Atlantic, however there are particular species and species groups that are vulnerable to fishing impacts (Figure 6).


Figure 6. Sponge by-catch in the NAFO Convention Area, representative of concentrations of Geodia spp.

Large sponge by-catches have been recorded in a relatively small number of surveys (<5%) (Fuller, unpublished; Murillo et al., 2008). However, large by-catches of sponges (up to 6,000 kg) have been recorded on the Scotian Shelf and in deeper waters along the Grand Banks, Flemish Cap and Labrador Shelf. With the progression of fisheries into deeper waters since the 1992 groundfish moratorium, large sponge catches have been recorded between 800 and 1,400 m throughout the Northwest Atlantic (Figure 7).

Depth (m)

Spo

nge

by-

catc

h w

eigh

t (kg

)

Figure 7. Depth of sponge by-catch >1,000 kg as reported in Canadian trawl survey data (1995-2007).

Canadian surveys do not adequately cover the Flemish Cap area, however information from Russian and Spanish/EU surveys offer additional data providing an increased level of coverage for this area (see Figure 8,Figure 9 and Figure 10).


Figure 8. Russian fleet location on Greenland halibut fishery in the NAFO Div. 3LМ by observer data (2000-2008) and coral/sponge occurrence by Russian fishery maps and description data (from Vinnichenko and Skylar, 2008).

Figure 9. Russian fleet location on Greenland halibut fishery in the NAFO Div. 3NO by observer data (2000-2008) and coral/sponge occurrence by Russian fishery maps and description data (from Vinnichenko and Skylar 2008).


Figure 10. Records of large sponge by-catch (estimated weights in some cases) derived from Spanish/EU groundfish survey data sources (2005-2007) in NAFO Divisions 3LMNO. The footprint of the Spanish Greenland halibut fishery for period 2001-2006 shows that these areas are not being subjected to intense bottom trawl fishing. In terms of biomass, bottom trawl by-catch obtained by haul ranged from a maximum of 5,000 kg to a minimum of 58 kg (only records bigger than 50 kg/haul are represented). Effort percentage values per rectangle of 0.2 x 0.2 degrees. (from Murillo et al., 2008).

For the purposes of identification of VMEs, the data available in the NRA clearly show defined areas where sponges are more abundant than in other areas. For example, the northwest edge of the Flemish Cap and the southern region of the Flemish Pass continuing south along the slope emerge as potentially important sponge VMEs. Large catches have also been recorded southwest of the Flemish Cap.

Fish

Although information from other organisms was also considered, the bulk of the available data on mobile species corresponded to fish. The inclusion of these data for identification and delineation of VMEs followed a step-wise process detailed in WGEAFM (2008). The first of these steps is arguably the most important, as it selects a subset of the FAO criteria that can be applied to individual fish species with guidance about how they can be applied. For example, from the original five FAO criteria, only three were considered suitable for examination at the individual fish species level (criteria 1, 2 and 4). These criteria were made operational as follows:

1. Uniqueness or rarity. A species or stock will be selected for further consideration if it is: • endemic of a specific location, or • is listed by one or more national and/or international organizations as being under a special

conservation category, or • is under fishing moratorium, or • there is evidence that the stock in the Grand Bank and/or NRA has declined to low levels in

recent years.


2. Functional significance of the habitat. A species will be selected for further consideration if there are relatively discrete areas that are considered critical for the well-being and/or recovery of the species/stock (e.g. spawning, nursery or feeding areas) in the NRA.

3. Life history traits. A species will be selected for further consideration if it possesses life history traits (slow growing, late maturation, unpredictable recruitment, high longevity) that may impact on recovery rates.

Following this process a list of potential VME indicator fish species was developed (Table 1).


Table 1. List of potential fish VME indicator species. Highlighted species: orange = moratorium, green = vulnerable, yellow = low abundance, purple = designated, blue = possibly vulnerable, grey = seamount species. i – v = FAO VME species criteria, Inc = species considered to be potential VME indicator species. 16 species in total have been identified excluding seamount specific species and 14 of these have sufficient data for them to be mapped.

Common name i ii iii iv v Inc Scientific name Mapped Initial rationale for inclusion Final rationale for inclusion/exclusion

redfish, deep water n n y in Sebastes mentella * COSEWIC designation, threatened, life history

Distribution restricted to slopes, core concentrations in the NRA

redfish, golden (marinus) n n y in Sebastes marinus * COSEWIC designation, threatened, life history


redfish, Acadian n n y in Sebastes faciatus * COSEWIC designation, threatened, life history


American Plaice n n n Hippoglossoides platessoides * NAFO moratorium, COSEWIC designation threatened

Ample distribution, no critical concentrations in NRA

cod, Atlantic n n n Gadus morhua * NAFO moratorium, COSEWIC designation endangered, Good population in 3M

Ample distribution, no critical concentrations in NRA

witch flounder n n n Glyptocephalus cynoglossus * NAFO moratorium Ample distribution, no critical concentrations in NRA

Caplin in * NAFO moratorium Critical spawning grounds in the Southeast Shoal for 3NO stock

dogfish, black n n y in Centroscyllium fabricii * Sensitive life history traits Restricted areas of high concentration on the GB and in the NRA

grenadier, roundnose n n y in Coryphaenoides rupestris * Designated [endangered, COSEWIC], life history

Restricted areas of high concentration on the GB and in the NRA

grenadier, roughhead n n y in Macrourus berglax * Designated [special concern, COSEWIC], life history


deep sea cat shark in * Sensitive life history traits Restricted areas of low concentration on the GB and in the NRA

hake, white (common) n n y in Urophycis tenuis * low abundance, under review by COSEWIC


wolffish, striped y n* ? in Anarhichas lupus * Designated [special concern, COSEWIC & SARA]


wolffish, broadhead y n* ? in Anarhichas denticulatus * Designated [threatened, COSEWIC & SARA]


skate, smooth y y y in Malacoraja senta * Final assessment stage, COSEWIC Restricted areas of high concentration on the GB and in the NRA, potential for local populations

wolffish, spotted y n* ? in Anarhichas minor * Designated [threatened, COSEWIC & SARA]



Common name i ii iii iv v Inc Scientific name Mapped Initial rationale for inclusion Final rationale for inclusion/exclusion

halibut (Atlantic) y n n Hippoglossus hippoglossus Designated [not at risk, COSEWIC] Ample distribution, no critically low concentrations in NRA

mako, shortfin y n y Isurus oxyrinchus Designated [threatened, COSEWIC]

Ample distribution, pelagic, no critically low concentrations in NRA

porbeagle y n y in Lamna nasus Designated [endangered, COSEWIC]

Pupping grounds in the NRA and other parts of the Grand Bank

skate, spinytail n n y in Bathyraja spinicauda * Sensitive life history traits Highest concentrations along the slope, Restricted areas of high concentration on the GB and in the NRA

shark, Portuguese y ? y in Centroscymnus coelolepis Sensitive life history and, presence in seamounts

A globally rare species but with high frequency of records in the NRA, also present in seamounts

shark, basking n n y Cetorhinus maximus Designated [special concern, COSEWIC], life history

Ample distribution

Alfonsino y y n in Beryx splendens Present on seamounts distribution and concentrations highly associated to seamounts

Beryx decadactylus y y n in Beryx decadactylus Present on seamounts distribution and concentrations highly associated to seamounts

Orange roughy y y y in Hoplostethus atlanticus Present on seamounts distribution and concentrations highly associated to seamounts

Hoplostethus mediterraneus y y y? in Hoplostethus mediterraneus Present on seamounts distribution and concentrations highly associated to seamounts

Wreckfish y y y? in Polyprin americanus Present on seamounts distribution and concentrations highly associated to seamounts

Cardinalfish y y y? in Epigonus telescopus Present on seamounts distribution and concentrations highly associated to seamounts

Portuguese dogfish n n y in Centroscymus coelopepis Present on seamounts distribution and concentrations highly associated to seamounts


3.3. Candidate VME areas

Based upon the assessment of trawl survey data (above) it was possible to identify and map eight large candidate VME areas in the NRA (Figure 11). Descriptions for each of these areas are given below.

Figure 11. General areas of known VMEs in the NRA with some overlap into the Canadian EEZ. Numbers correspond to the text description and the red line indicates an area where potential VMEs for deep-water coral were thought likely. 100, 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 m depth contours are depicted as thick lines.

Area 1 Flemish Cap East

Rationale Large gorgonians and high density of sponges (several survey hauls >1,000 kg)

Suggested Depth 500-1,500 m

Information Murillo et al. (2008) (EU bottom-trawl survey), WGDEC report (ICES, 2008b).

Comments Between Flemish cap east and west, area generally unknown but slope steepness and topography suggest area where VME likely to occur. Relatively little fishing in this area. Possible extension to Beothuk Knoll area. High densities of black dogfish, in shallower water (DFO Survey 1995-2004).

Vulnerable Fish Species black dogfish, smooth skate (DFO trawl survey 1995-2004)

Area 2 Northern Flemish Cap

Rationale Area of high density of pennatulaceans, alcyonaceans and antipatharians and, to a lesser extent, solitary scleractinians and small gorgonians.


Information Murillo et al. (2008) (EU bottom-trawl survey), Canadian observers (1 trip), WGDEC report (ICES, 2008b).

Comments

Vulnerable Fish Species Northern wolfish and spiny dogfish (DFO Trawl Survey Data 1995-2004)


Area 3 Sackville Spur

Rationale High density of sponges; several survey catches > 1,000 kg/haul.


Information DFO Trawl Survey Data 1995-2007, one record of high density in Murillo et al. (2008) (EU bottom-trawl survey), WGDEC report (ICES, 2008b).

Comments

Vulnerable Fish Species

Area 4 Northeast Shelf and Slope (Within Canadian EEZ)

Rationale Abundance of gorgonian and antipatharian corals.


Information DFO Trawl Surveys (1995-2004), Canadian observer data, WGDEC report (ICES, 2008b), Murillo et al. (2008) (Spanish bottom-trawl survey).

Comments Within the Canadian EEZ, not for consideration by the SC or FC at this time.

Vulnerable Fish Species Fish species analysis for areas within EEZ not included

Area 5 Southern Flemish Pass to Eastern Canyons

Rationale Large gorgonians and large survey catches (>1,000 kg/haul) of sponges.


Information DFO Trawl survey data (1995-2007), Murillo et al. (2008) (Spanish bottom-trawl survey), WGDEC report (ICES, 2008b).

Comments Included in Canadian EBSA (Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas) identification

Vulnerable Fish Species striped wolfish, redfish, spiny tailed skate, northern wolfish, some black dogfish, deep sea cat shark (DFO trawl survey data 1995-2004)

Area 6 Beothuk Knoll

Rationale Abundant gorgonian corals; large survey catches (>1,000 kg/haul) of sponges.


Information (EU bottom-trawl survey), DFO trawl survey data, WGDEC report (ICES, 2008b).

Comments

Vulnerable Fish Species Northern wolfish, spiny tailed skate, roundnose grenadier, deep sea cat shark, black dogfish.

Area 7 South East Shoal (a) and Adjacent Shelf Edge/Canyons (b)

Rationale (a) Unique spawning grounds on SE Shoal, marine mammal feeding grounds, long-lived and relict bivalve populations in sandy shoal habitat,

(b) Deep water canyon connectivity, records of corals in canyons. Canyons are megahabitats as identified in the FAO Guidelines Annex 1.

Suggested Depth The shoal is defined by the 55 m isobath. Canyons extend up to 1,500 m

Information DFO Trawl Survey 1995-2004, WGDEC report (ICES, 2008b).

Comments Southeast shoal proposed as protect area by Walsh et al. (1995), Brodie (1996), Fuller and Myers (2004). Suggested to divide into two – shoal and canyon

Vulnerable Fish Species spawning capelin (shoal), northern wolfish (canyon), redfish (canyon), striped and spotted wolfish (canyon), roundnose grenadier (canyon), black dogfish (canyon)

Area 8 Division 3O Coral Closure Area

Rationale Existing Coral Closure, based on coral concentrations, high bycatch of pennatulaceans and solitary scleractinian corals.


Information Murillo et al. (2008) (Spanish bottom-trawl survey), WGDEC report (ICES, 2008b).

Comments WGDEC (ICES, 2008b) recommendation that the depth of the closure be decreased to 200 m. Boundaries reflect that recommendation

Vulnerable Fish Species White hake and redfish, black dogfish, smooth skate, deep-sea catshark (DFO Trawl Survey Data 1995-2004).


Seamounts and other knolls

Rationale These topographical features constitute mega-habitats and are likely host of VMEs (FAO guidelines) habitats, which include corals, sponges and a range of vulnerable fish species, some of which are considered to be endemic. Carbonate mounds are found on and around Orphan Knoll but little information is available on associated benthic fauna

Suggested Depth All seafloor above 2,000 m

Information New England Seamounts, Corner Rise Seamounts, Newfoundland Seamounts, Fogo Seamounts, and Orphan Knoll

Comments

Vulnerable Fish Species alfonsino (not long-lived but an aggregating species on seamounts and therefore vulnerable to rapid depletion), orange roughy and silver roughy, wreckfish and cardinal fish

3.4. Fishing footprint

Spatial fishing effort within the NRA was determined using commercial fishing vessel positions contained in the VMS database hosted by the NAFO Secretariat. A vessel was taken to be trawling if the calculated speed was between 2 and 4 knots. Owing to the precise nature of the VMS data, it is difficult to disaggregate the information by fleet, target species, etc., but it is generally possible to decide this afterwards based on an examination of the area and depth of the fishing effort. Figure 12 shows the combined fishing effort in the NRA for 2003-2007. For example, the red area corresponds to more than 100 hours of fishing over the five years per one minute latitude-one minute longitude square (minute square) or 20 hours per year per minute square. Significant fishing effort restricted to depths less than around 1,500 m around the slopes of the Flemish Cap and the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.

Figure 12. Map of total fishing effort in 2003-2007 and the fishery closure areas as of 2008 to bottom fishing in the NRA. Density indicates logarithm base 10 of the hours fished in one minute latitude-one minute longitude square.


3.5. Areas closed to bottom fishing in the NRA

Based on further analysis of survey vessel trawl data and on agreement at NAFO Scientific Council in 2011, 18 closed areas (Figure 13) have been defined; they include existing areas identified as candidate VME areas in the NRA. These 18 closed areas have been approved by the Fisheries Commission (FC) and are listed in the 2012 NAFO conservation and enforcement measures (CEMs, NAFO 2012).

Figure 13. Map of all areas currently closed to bottom fishing to protect significant concentrations of corals, sponges and seamount habitats in the NRA.

Finally, all of the information analysed and endorsed by Scientific Council has been used to generate a final map (Figure 14) of all features and designations. It includes all the new information on locations of significant research vessel trawl catches of corals and sponges outside of the closed areas for the period 2008-2010 and other VME indicator species (including an update of black corals records and new VME indicator species) and potential VME elements.


Figure 14. Map of all areas currently closed to protect significant concentrations of corals and sponges in the NRA (Divs. 3LMNO). The location of significant research vessel trawl catches of these species groups and presence of black corals (Antipatharia) outside of the closed areas, location of potential VME elements and candidate VME areas, previously identified together with new information on the locations of significant research vessel trawl catches of corals and sponges outside of the closed areas for the period 2008-2010 (Murillo et al. 2011a), and VME indicator species and elements.

3.6. Box core samples

To date, 40 box core samples of the 368 collected have been processed (Figure 15). The Sackville Spur closed area was selected during a NEREIDA meeting in Vigo (Oct. 2010) as the first case study from which box core samples should be processed to investigate differences in benthic community structure inside and outside the closed area (see below). A manuscript describing the results from this study has been published in the ICES Journal of Marine Science (see Barrio Froján et al, 2011).

A similar assessment to the one carried out in Sackville Spur area has also been completed with samples from around the North Flemish Pass, identified as the next area with the highest priority for investigation. Twenty five box core samples have been processed and the acquired data compared with those from the Sackville Spur study (see below). A manuscript detailing the findings is in preparation for submission to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.


Figure 15. Box core sample locations. Those indicated in red have been processed and the results described (see below).

Sackville Spur closed area samples

A detailed study of 15 box core samples taken in and around the Sackville Spur have been analysed to characterise the macrofaunal assemblage inside and outside the closed area. The principal aim of the research was to acquire evidence to either support or oppose the continued closure of the Sackville Spur to bottom-contact fishing gear. Patterns in the data revealed at least three distinct faunal assemblages (Figure 16).


InsideOutside

Group average

100

80

60

40

20

Sim

ilari

ty

Dispersion weighting

Transform: None

Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity

Figure 16. Top: Dendrogram illustrating the similarity between samples from the Sackville Spur, with three statistically distinct assemblages highlighted. Bottom: Spatial arrangement of distinct assemblages identified in the dendrogram above in relation to the Sackville Spur closed area (red box) and the historical (2008-2010) fishing footprint (small dots).

In addition to these distinct assemblages, differences in assemblage composition were also detected between the assemblages living inside and outside the closed area. Assemblages inside the closed area were characterised by a greater proportion of VME indicative taxa. The relative contribution of each major taxon to the difference between assemblages inside and outside the closed area is presented in Table 2.


Table 2. Left: Relative contribution of each taxon to the dissimilarity between macrofaunal assemblages living inside and outside the Sackville Spur closed area. Taxa are ordered in decreasing order of combined contribution, and each cell is colour-coded on a colour scale to reflect the relative contribution of each taxon to the whole assemblage (red = high, yellow = medium, green = low). Taxa indicative of VMEs are in bold. Right: MDS plots illustrating the degree of similarity between samples coded by location in relation to closed area (top) and sized in proportion to the relative abundance of VME indicative taxa (bottom).

Taxa Inside Outside

Polychaeta 3.21 4.01

Nematoda 3.24 1.16

Ophiuroidea 3.22 0.26

Gastropoda 1.33 2.11

Nemertea 1.31 1.75

Bivalvia 0.87 1.79

Aplacophora 1.17 1.44

Hydrozoa 2.00 0.11

Demospongiae 1.87 0.11

Malacostraca 0.95 0.78

Scaphopoda 0.17 1.56

Crinoidea 1.33 0.11

Sipunculida 1.16 0.16

Maxillopoda 0.47 0.82

Holothuroidea 1.18 0.04

Ascidiacea 0.83 0.33

Anthozoa 0.15 0.73

Porifera 0.77 0.00

Pycnogonida 0.67 0.00

Ostracoda 0.00 0.37

Priapulida 0.17 0.11

Asteroidea 0.17 0.00

Cnidaria 0.17 0.00

TOTAL 26.41 17.75

2D Stress: 0.11

Inside

Outside

2D Stress: 0.11

VME taxa

The single environmental variable which best explains the observed patterns in total faunal community structure is depth. A combination of three variables – depth, sediment temperature and % silt – showed a higher correlation with the complete faunal dataset than depth alone. The single environmental variable showing the highest correlation with VME community structure is fishing effort; no combination of variables showed a higher correlation with VME community structure. Based on the above findings, the recommendation is to continue enforcing the closure of the Sackville Spur closed area, to protect the VMEs within.

Flemish Pass closed area samples

Twenty-five box core samples taken in and around the northern Flemish Pass closed area have been processed for macrofauna. Of the 25 samples, seven were taken inside the closed area, with the remaining 18 falling outside. The fauna extracted from the samples have been identified to the lowest practicable taxonomic level (i.e. mostly to family), enumerated and weighed. Preliminary multivariate statistical analyses using family presence-absence data have been conducted to investigate faunal community structure. Results are illustrated in Figure 17 below.


Figure 17. From left to right: distribution of relative macrofaunal abundance, number of taxa, biomass and the four statistically different assemblages identified through multivariate analysis of the data. Red line is the outline of the Flemish Pass closed area; small grey dots are the fishing footprint of the Spanish trawler fleet between Feb-2008 and Dec-2010.

The total number of organisms processed was 24,447, classified into 196 taxa and representing at least 135 families. The number of organisms per sample ranged between 348 and 3,183, with those samples furthest south and inside the closed area harbouring higher numbers of organisms than those towards the north. The range in the number of families recorded per sample was 25 to 74, with samples towards the south having a greater number of families than those towards the north. Consistently low numbers of families were obtained from samples taken in areas with apparent high historical fishing effort (outside the closed area towards the east). Relatively high biomass values per sample (between 50 and 175 g blotted wet weight) were observed at three stations in the south of the closed area; elsewhere biomass values per sample ranged mostly between <1 and 10 g. Initial indications suggest that samples from which the highest biomass values were recorded were characterised by habitat-forming sponges, indicative of VMEs.

Multivariate statistical analysis on presence-absence data (i.e. ignoring abundance values) revealed four distinct assemblages. The largest and most widespread was present at 17 of the 22 sampling sites, mostly towards the north and down the eastern flank of the sampling area. These samples were characterised by relatively few individuals, few taxa and low biomass. The next largest distinct assemblage was represented by four samples towards the south and were characterised by relatively high numbers of individuals, taxa and biomass. The remaining two assemblages had intermediate to low numbers of individuals, taxa and biomass and were found at either extreme of the sampling area.

Preliminary analyses combining the present dataset with that from the Sackville Spur indicate some similarity in assemblage composition, especially between samples with high biomass and VME indicative taxa.

3.7. Rock dredge samples

All 94 rock dredge samples have been processed by major faunal group (Figure 18). Identification of echinoderm and cnidarian (except sea anemones) taxa to the lowest possible level has been completed. Molluscs and sponges continue to be processed along with other less abundant taxonomic groups.


Figure 18. Location map of rock dredge samples.

Sponge identification requires the preparation of spicule slides to study their shape and size under the microscope. This process is time-consuming and at present over 1,000 spicule slides have been prepared for specimen identification. A record of sponge and spicule photographs of sampled specimens during NEREIDA surveys has been prepared. In addition, two reference collections with invertebrate ‘voucher’ specimens have been created, one is stored in Vigo (Spain) and the other in Halifax (Canada). A common database is being developed by the Spanish institute of oceanography (IEO) to store all the information regarding the invertebrate specimens collected during all the NEREIDA surveys.

Biomass records from all 94 successful rock dredge trawls have been processed in an attempt to investigate the distribution of epibenthic biomass across the survey area, and how this relates to major geomorphological features and environmental conditions. Results from preliminary analyses reveal the potential importance of bottom currents and the seabed topography in determining the biomass of sponge and coral communities (Figure 19).


Figure 19. The distribution of significant amounts of sponge biomass in the NRA compared with the distribution of strong current velocities at 500 m depth. Note the spatial similarities between the distribution of high velocity values and high sponge biomass. This relationship was tested statistically using a GAM and was shown to be highly significant.

4. Conclusions

The three main objectives of this project have been systematically addressed and successfully achieved. Organisms and habitats indicative of VMEs have been identified and their distribution mapped within the fishing footprint of the NAFO regulatory area (Objective 1). Fishing effort has been quantified and mapped to assess which areas with high concentrations of sensitive organisms are indeed vulnerable to the direct and indirect effects of fishing with bottom contact gear (Objective 2). Conservation and enforcement measures have been applied in the form of exclusion areas which are closed to bottom contact fishing gear (Objective 3), coinciding with areas of relatively high concentrations of VME indicative organisms (e.g. sponges and corals). Cefas’ participation in the NEREIDA programme has been instrumental in achieving these objectives. It has also enabled the expansion of Cefas’ capability and expertise in the field of deep sea ecology, with valuable benefits to continuing our role as important contributors to shaping the ecosystem approach to environmental and fisheries management. The experience gained from this analysis in the NAFO area is of direct value to the NEAFC area covering deep sea habitats in the UK EEZ.

In addition to the summary above, the points listed below provide further detail on what has been achieved through Cefas’ participation in the NEREIDA programme.

1. Through the NEREIDA programme it is now likely that most of the significant areas of sponge and coral (sea pen) VME within or on the edge of the fishing footprint in the NRA are protected from bottom fishing activity by established fishery closure areas. However, it is apparent that some areas of the seabed in the NRA have lost a proportion VME species (notably patches of sponge and coral VMEs areas).

2. Evidence was gathered which revealed the importance of VMEs for commercial fish species. For example, the co-location of the most heavily fished areas with the most important concentrations of sponge and coral VME species. However, further work on this aspect is required to ascertain what specific features of VMEs are of importance to fish and for what reason.

3. Given that most of the significant concentrations of sponge and coral (sea pen) VME within or on the edge of the fishing footprint have been identified and now fall within fishery closure areas, the reliance on effective reporting of VME encounters (for these species), or in reaching agreement on acceptable VME species encounter thresholds with associated move-on-rules, no longer has the same importance as a management response within the fishing NRA footprint.


4. Further protection of existing VME from the secondary impacts of fishing (e.g. through the resuspension and transport of sediment caused by bottom contact gears) would most likely be facilitated by the introduction of buffer zones around existing closed areas. Such zones would also have the benefit of facilitating the recovery of lost VME habitat and species as there appears to be a strong relationship between near-bed currents and biomass for sponge and coral species, suggesting the systems have some resilience potential.

5. For the NAFO Regulatory Area (NRA) enforcing the spatial management of the fishery in terms of defining go and no-go areas and then monitoring vessel activity using VMS data would appear to offer a much more practical management measure than relying on effective reporting of VME encounters and the adoption of appropriate move-on-rules.

5. Further Work

Only about 10% of the box core samples have been fully processed so far under the NEREIDA programme. These samples, in addition to the video work undertaken by DFO in Canada, provide the only quantitative source of biological data available for robust statistical and ecological analysis. Given their extensive spatial distribution, the analysis of the remaining samples would enable the following objectives to be accomplished.

1. The relationships between environmental forcing and habitat attributes can be defined and used to predict the occurrence of VMEs and species.

2. The productivity and resilience of the VMEs could be investigated further and used to better inform bottom fishing management strategies. It would also help to define the most sustainable extent of VME areas to protect.

3. Trends in biodiversity of the deep-sea are quite different from those observed in the shallower shelf sea environment; for example, for a given amount of biomass the diversity in the deep-sea appears much greater than that observed on the shelf, and it appears that the proportion of the biomass distributed across different species has a much wider size spectra for shelf communities than it does in the deep-sea. Quantifying such differences would provide a much better understanding of the controlling mechanisms of biodiversity which are of fundamental importance for the establishment of Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) and sustaining levels of marine biodiversity in the future.

References Barrio Froján CRS, MacIsaac KG, McMillan AK, Sacau Cuadrado M, Large PA, Kenny AJ, Kenchington E, de Cárdenas González

E. 2012. An evaluation of benthic community structure in and around the Sackville Spur closed area (Northwest Atlantic) in relation to the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science 69(2), 213-222.

Cogswell A, Kenchington E, Lirette C, Murillo FJ, Campanis G, Campbell N, Ollerhead N. 2011. Layers Utilized by an ArcGIS Model to Approximate Commercial Coral and Sponge By-catch in the NAFO Regulatory Area. NAFO SCR Doc. 11/72. Serial No. N6002. 50pp.

Fuller SD, Murillo Perez FJ, Wareham V, Kenchington E. 2008. Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems Dominated by Deep-Water Corals and Sponges in the NAFO Convention Area. NAFO SCR Doc. 08/22.

ICES. 2008. Report of the ICES‐NAFO Joint Working Group on Deep-water Ecology (WGDEC), 10–14 March 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2008/ACOM:45. 122 pp.

Kenchington, E., A. Cogswell, C. Lirette and F.J. Murillo-Pérez. 2009. The use of density analyses to delineate sponge grounds and other benthic VMEs from trawl survey data. Serial No. N5626. NAFO SCR Doc. 09/6, 16 pp.

Murillo FJ, Duran Muñoz P, Altuna A, Serrano A. 2011b. Distribution of deep-water corals of the Flemish Cap, Flemish Pass, and the Grand Banks of Newfoundland (Northwest Atlantic Ocean): interaction with fishing activities. ICES Journal of Marine Science 68 (2): 319-332.

Murillo FJ, Duran Muñoz P, Sacau M, Gonzalez-Troncoso D, Serrano A. 2008. Preliminary data on cold-water corals and large sponges by-catch from Spanish/EU bottom trawl groundfish surveys in NAFO Regulatory Area (Divs. 3LMNO) and Canadian EEZ (Div. 3L) 2005-2007 period. NAFO SCR Doc. 08/10.

Murillo FJ, Kenchington E, Sacau M, Piper DJW, Wareham V, Duran Muñoz P. 2011a. New VME indicator species (excluding corals and sponges) and some potential VME elements of the NAFO Regulatory Area. NAFO SCR Doc. 11/73, Serial No. N6003. 20pp.


Murillo, F.J., E. Kenchington, C. Gonzalez, and M.Sacau. 2010. The Use of Density analyses to delineate significant concentrations of pennatulaceans from trawl survey data. NAFO SCR Doc. 10/07, Serial No.N5753, 7 pp.

NAFO. 2012. Conservation and Enforcement Measures. NAFO/FC Doc. 12/1. Serial No. N6001. 100pp.

Vinnichenko VI, Sklyar VV. 2008. On the issue of areas closure to protect vulnerable marine habitats in the NAFO Regulatory Area. NAFO NAFO Working Group on Ecosystem Approach of Fisheries Management. Working Paper.


References to published material

9. This section should be used to record links (hypertext links where possible) or references to other published material generated by, or relating to this project.

NEREIDA official website: http://www.nafo.int/science/frames/nereida.html

Barrio Froján CRS, MacIsaac KG, McMillan AK, Sacau Cuadrado M, Large PA, Kenny AJ, Kenchington E, de Cárdenas González E. 2012. An evaluation of benthic community structure in and around the Sackville Spur closed area (Northwest Atlantic) in relation to the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science 69(2), 213-222. http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/69/2/213.abstract

Cogswell A, Kenchington E, Lirette C, Murillo FJ, Campanis G, Campbell N, Ollerhead N. 2011. Layers Utilized by an ArcGIS Model to Approximate Commercial Coral and Sponge By-catch in the NAFO Regulatory Area. NAFO SCR Doc. 11/72. Serial No. N6002. 50pp. http://archive.nafo.int/open/sc/2011/scr11-072.pdf

Fuller SD, Murillo Perez FJ, Wareham V, Kenchington E. 2008. Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems Dominated by Deep-Water Corals and Sponges in the NAFO Convention Area. NAFO SCR Doc. 08/22. http://archive.nafo.int/open/sc/2008/scr08-022.pdf

ICES. 2008. Report of the ICES‐NAFO Joint Working Group on Deep-water Ecology (WGDEC), 10–14 March 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2008/ACOM:45. 122 pp. www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2008/WGDEC/WGDEC_2008.pdf

Murillo FJ, Duran Muñoz P, Altuna A, Serrano A. 2011b. Distribution of deep-water corals of the Flemish Cap, Flemish Pass, and the Grand Banks of Newfoundland (Northwest Atlantic Ocean): interaction with fishing activities. ICES Journal of Marine Science 68 (2): 319-332. http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/68/2/319.abstract

Murillo FJ, Duran Muñoz P, Sacau M, Gonzalez-Troncoso D, Serrano A. 2008. Preliminary data on cold-water corals and large sponges by-catch from Spanish/EU bottom trawl groundfish surveys in NAFO Regulatory Area (Divs. 3LMNO) and Canadian EEZ (Div. 3L) 2005-2007 period. NAFO SCR Doc. 08/10. http://archive.nafo.int/open/sc/2008/scr08-010.pdf

Murillo FJ, Kenchington E, Sacau M, Piper DJW, Wareham V, Duran Muñoz P. 2011a. New VME indicator species (excluding corals and sponges) and some potential VME elements of the NAFO Regulatory Area. NAFO SCR Doc. 11/73, Serial No. N6003. 20pp. http://archive.nafo.int/open/sc/2011/scr11-073.pdf

NAFO. 2012. Conservation and Enforcement Measures. NAFO/FC Doc. 12/1. Serial No. N6001. 100pp. www.nafo.int/fisheries/CEM/CEM.pdf

Vinnichenko VI, Sklyar VV. 2008. On the issue of areas closure to protect vulnerable marine habitats in the NAFO Regulatory Area. NAFO NAFO Working Group on Ecosystem Approach of Fisheries Management. Working Paper. http://archive.nafo.int/open/sc/2008/scr08-079.pdf

http://www.nafo.int/science/frames/nereida.html

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/69/2/213.abstract

http://archive.nafo.int/open/sc/2011/scr11-072.pdf


http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2008/WGDEC/WGDEC_2008.pdf

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/68/2/319.abstract



http://www.nafo.int/fisheries/CEM/CEM.pdf


Documents

Evidence Project Final Report - GOV.UKrandd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=11611_MF1004... · EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 3 of 31 concentrations of