IDENTIFICATION AND - ec. · PDF fileIDENTIFICATION AND ... PAM Partitioning Around Medoids ... maximum quantities of fish or total allowable catches (TACs) which are divided among

IDENTIFICATION AND SEGMENTATION OF MIXED-SPECIES

FISHERIES OPERATING IN THE ATLANTIC IBERIAN PENINSULA

WATERS

(IBERMIX project)

FINAL REPORT

toEuropean Commission

Directorate-General for Fisheries and maritime Affairs

(Contract Ref.: FISH/2004/03-33)

“This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission and in no way anticipates any future opinion of the Commission.

The contents of this report not be reproduced unless the source the material is indicated.

This study has been carried out with the financial assistance of the European Commission.”

IDENTIFICATION AND SEGMENTATION OF MIXED-SPECIES FISHERIES OPERATING IN THE ATLANTIC IBERIAN PENINSULA

WATERS

(IBERMIX project)

FINAL REPORT

toEuropean Commission

Directorate-General for Fisheries and maritime Affairs

(Contract Ref.: FISH/2004/03-33)

List of contributors (by alphabetical order):

Esther Abad IEO, Santander, Spain ([email protected])Iñaki Artetxe AZTI, Sukarrieta, Spain ([email protected])Fátima Cardador* IPIMAR, Lisbon, Portugal ([email protected])José Castro** IEO, Vigo, Spain ([email protected])Rafael Duarte IPIMAR, Lisbon, Portugal ([email protected])Dorleta García AZTI, Sukarrieta, Spain ([email protected])Carmen Hernández IEO, Santander, Spain ([email protected])Manuel Marín IEO, Vigo, Spain ([email protected])Alberto Murta IPIMAR, Lisbon, Portugal ([email protected])Antonio Punzón IEO,Santander, Spain([email protected])Iñaki Quincoces AZTI, Sukarrieta, Spain ([email protected])Marina Santurtún*** AZTI,Sukarrieta, Spain ([email protected])Cristina Silva IPIMAR, Lisbon, Portugal ([email protected])Luis Silva IEO, Cádiz, Spain ([email protected])

* IPIMAR coordinator. ** Project coordinator and IEO coordinator. *** AZTI coordinator.

AZTI- Arrantzuarekiko Zentro Teknologikoa eta Ikerketakoa. IEO- Instituto Español de Oceanografía. INIAP/IPIMAR – Instituto Nacional de Investigação Agrária e das Pescas.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was partially funded by the European Commission, Directorate-General for

Fisheries and Maritime Affairs. We thank to all people involved in same way in the different

tasks developed during the project.

The IEO and AZTI teams are grateful to SGPM (Secretaría Geneal de Pesca Marítima) for

providing logbooks of the Spanish fleets, particularly to Mar Fernández (Jefa de Área de

Asuntos Comunitarios). We also thank Nélida Pérez for sharing her in-depth knowledge of

the Spanish fleets and very useful information obtained directly by observers on board for

the IEO project that she coordinates: “IBDES” (Estimación del descarte de las flotas de

arrastre españolas en las Áreas VI, VII, VIII y IX del ICES y Mediterráneo: Aproximación al

descarte total por métier). The AZTI team expresses their particular thanks to SGPM for

providing the sale slips of the Basque vessels, as well as the Basque Fishermen, Shipowners

Associations and “Cofradías de Pescadores”.

The IPIMAR team expresses their thanks to Graça Pestana (Director of the Department of

Marine Resources) for providing support to use the IPIMAR database Pescart (OCIPESCA

project - Scientific Observatory of the Small-Scale Fisheries). We are grateful to Manuela

Oliveira for her availability and useful explanations to access the database. Also, we

appreciate and thank the helpful scientific support given by Manuela Azevedo, coordinator of

the IPIMAR project NeoMAv “Novas Metodologias de Avaliação” (FEDER, UE co-financed).

FOREWORD

This is the final report presenting the results of the EU study contract FISH/2004/03-33

entitled " IDENTIFICATION AND SEGMENTATION OF MIXED-SPECIES FISHERIES OPERATING

IN THE ATLANTIC IBERIAN PENINSULA WATERS", which has been conducted in accordance to

the conditions stipulated by the contract with the Commission.

The acronym IBERMIX was used in the report when refering to this study contract.

This report was finished and sent to EC DGFISH in September 2007.

Table of abbreviations

ACFM ICES Advisory Committee for Fishery Management

AMAWGC ICES Assessment Working Groups Chairs meeting

ASPIC A Stock-Production Model Incorporating Covariates

AZTI Arrantzuarekiko Zentro Teknologikoa eta Ikerketakoa

BOE Boletín Oficial del Estado

BOJA Boletín Oficial de la Junta de Andalucía

CFP Common Fishery Policy

CLARA Clustering Large Applications

DCR Data Collection Regulation

ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

IEO Instituto Español de Oceanografía

IPIMAR Instituto de Investigação das Pescas e do Mar

PAM Partitioning Around Medoids

SGDFF ICES Study Group for the Development of Fishery-based Forecasts

SGMIXMAN ICES Study Group on Mixed Fisheries Management

SGPM Secretaría General de Pesca Marítima

STECF Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries

TAC Total Allowable Catch

WGHMMICES Working Group on the Assessment of Southern Shelf Socks of Hake,

Monk and Megrim

WGMHSAICES Working Group on the Assessment of Mackerel, Horse Mackerel,

Sardine and Anchovy

WGNPBW ICES Working Group of the Northern Pelagic and Blue Whiting fisheries

WKMIXMAN ICES Workshop on Simple Mixed Fisheries Management Model

XSA Extended Survivors Analysis

Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1. Background 1

1.2. Fishery management in the Atlantic Iberian Peninsula waters 3

1.3. IBERMIX objectives 4

2. Fleets reviewed 7

2.1. Spanish fleets 7

2.1.1. Spanish fleets operating in the Northern Spanish Atlantic waters 7

2.1.1.1. Northern Spanish coastal fleets using mobile gears 9

2.1.1.2. Northern Spanish coastal fleets using fixed gears 11

2.1.2. Spanish fleets operating in the Southern Spanish Atlantic waters (Gulf of Cádiz) 15

2.1.2.1. Gulf of Cádiz fleets using mobile gears 16

2.1.2.2. Gulf of Cádiz fleets using fixed gears 19

2.2. Portuguese fleets 22

2.2.1. Portuguese fleets using mobile gears 24

2.2.2. Portuguese fleets using fixed gears 25

3. Identification of métiers 53

3.1. Materials and Methods 56

3.1.1. Data bases 56

3.1.2. Multivariate analysis methods 58

3.2. Results 60

3.2.1. Segmentation of the Spanish fleets 60

3.2.1.1. Segmentation of the Northern Spanish coastal fleets using mobile gears 60

3.2.1.2. Segmentation of the Northern Spanish coastal fleets using fixed gears. 64

3.2.1.3. Segmentation of the Gulf of Cádiz fleets using mobile gears 67

3.2.1.4. Segmentation of the Gulf of Cádiz fleets using fixed gears 69

3.2.2. Segmentation of the Portuguese fleets 73

3.2.2.1. Segmentation of the Portuguese fleets using mobile gears 73

3.2.2.2. Segmentation of the Portuguese fleets using fixed gears (multi-gear fleet) 75

3.3. Conclusions 78

3.3.1. Métiers of the Atlantic Spanish fleets 78

3.3.2. Métiers of the Portuguese fleets 80

4. Métier-disaggregated fishing data 175

4.1. Review of the National Sampling Programmes 177

4.1.1. Disaggregating of the Spanish fishing data by métier. 178

4.1.2. Disaggregating of the Portuguese fishing data by métier. 182

4.2. Supplying results to the assessment and management WG’s. 184

4.2.1. Proposal of segmentation of the Atlantic Iberian fleets in agreement with the working groups related 184

4.2.2. Use of the fishing data disaggregated by the new Atlantic Iberian fleet segmentation 186

4.3. Time series restoration 190

4.3.1. Spanish time series restoration 190

4.3.2. Portuguese time series restoration 193

5. Conclusions 213

5.1. Identification of fleets/fisheries/métiers 213

5.2. Fishing data disaggregated by métier 213

5.3. Supplying IBERMIX results to WG’s 214

References 215

Annexes:

I Gear descriptions

II European and national regulations

III FAO codes for species and gears

IBERMIX report Section 1

1. Introduction

The IBERMIX project (FISH/2004/03-33), titled “Identification and segmentation of mixed-

species fisheries operating in the Atlantic Iberian Peninsula waters” is an EU-funded study

(European Commission/Directorate-General for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs) signed on

09/01/2006 and with 18 months of duration. This project was requested due to the

necessity of developing the mixed-fisheries approach in the Atlantic Iberian waters, as it was

done before for the Spanish fleets operating in other European areas. Nevertheless, the

complexity and variability of the Atlantic Iberian fisheries made it needed an especial and

collective project to deal with. The investigations were carried out by the three institutes

involved in the fisheries operating in the Atlantic Iberian waters: AZTI (Spain), IEO (Spain),

and IPIMAR (Portugal).

1.1. Background

The IBERMIX project has to be understood within the European Union context, where the

Common Fishery Policy (CFP) has been evolving for adapting to the complexity of the

different EU Member States fisheries since it first implementation in 1983. The main

objective of the CFP is to provide the basis for sustainable fisheries within and beyond

Community waters taking into account environmental, economic and social aspects and

applying good governance principles. The first approach to achieve this has been by setting

maximum quantities of fish or total allowable catches (TACs) which are divided among

Member States in national quotas.

Nevertheless, since 1 January 2003 a reform of the CFP identified limitation of fishing effort

together with limitation of catches and technical measures as the main measures to be used

in the management of fisheries. The reform furthermore opened for a more long-term

approach to fisheries management, involving the establishment of multi-annual recovery

plans for stocks outside safe biological limits and of multi-annual management plans for

other stocks. At the same time, it was noted that the management on a single-species basis

was unlikely to be effective in the particular case of demersal species, where virtually all

demersal fisheries catch a mix of different species simultaneously.

Previously to the CFP reform, in 2001, the European Commission sent to ICES a request for

provision of advice in a fisheries context rather than on an individual stock basis (EC, 2001).

The Commission suggested that ICES should prepare plans for developing a database, which

would collate catch-at-age data disaggregated by fleet and by area. At the Fisheries Council

of December 2001, the Council and the Commission emphasized the need to further develop

the scientific basis for management that takes appropriate account of the mixed nature of

the fisheries, and stressed the importance that objective information about the

consequences of fisheries interactions be available when TACs are being considered for the

year 2003. This issue resulted in the Commission sending to ICES a more explicit request

1

Section 1 IBERMIX report

regarding scientific advice on mixed fisheries (EC, 2002). The Commission commended the

following course of action for years 2002 and 2003:

For 2002:

“The relevant ICES assessment working groups should be asked, as soon as

possible, to:

Propose appropriate definitions of fishing fleets, as far as possible as

operationally distinct and functionally homogenous units.

For the fleet sectors defined as above, estimate landings (and discards

where available), disaggregated by species, fleet, and ICES

division (or sub-division where possible), for the years 1999, 2000 and

2001.

These data should be provided to the Commission services for the attention of

STECF as soon as possible after the meetings of each assessment working

group. SGRST/STECF will, after the annual advice has been provided by ACFM,

be asked to use the aforementioned data to make fishery-based calculations and

forecasts corresponding to some scenarios based on ACFM advice. The

Commission services will request a certain minimum number of specific scenario

calculations to be made, corresponding to some specific options from ACFM

catch advice”.

2003 and later:

“In the longer term, ICES should reformulate its advice to take better account

of the characteristics of fishing fleets. However, it may be premature to decide

on a new form of advice before the procedure outlined above has been

attempted and the outcome has been evaluated. It seems unavoidable however

that the compilation of age-structured information on catches by fleet will be

needed, and that multifleet forecasting software will be needed. Furthermore,

modelling studies which lead to an ability to forecast the extent to which fishing

fleets can modify their targeting behaviour may need to be initiated. STECF has

advised that it would be helpful for ICES to establish a working group to address

a number of questions, including fleet definitions, age-structured data assembly,

development of multifleet and multispecies short term projection software,

collation of datasets including partial (fleet) and total fishing mortalities at age”.

ICES accepted both the high priority character of providing fishery-based advice, and the

urgent need to make progress on this issue, and it reacted by initiating the “Study Group for

the Development of Fishery-based Forecasts” (SGDFF) in 2003, which was also held in 2004.

2


This study group meant the base for the first guidelines of the operational definition of

fisheries based on individual voyage data, together with the design of workable catch data

structure and the selection of appropriate software for mixed-fisheries management.

1.2. Fishery management in the Atlantic Iberian Peninsula waters

There are 12 demersal stocks and 6 pelagic stocks in the Atlantic Iberian waters that are

annually assessed by three different ICES working groups, which are later used as scientific

base of the EU fishery management:

The demersal stocks are assessed by the “ICES Working Group on the Assessment

of Southern Shelf Stocks of Hake, Monk and Megrim” (WGHMM)1:

o Southern hake (Merluccius merluccius in ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa).

o Southern white anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius in ICES Divisions VIIIc and

IXa).

o Southern black anglerfish (Lophius budegassa in ICES Divisions VIIIc and

IXa).

o Southern megrim (Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis in ICES Divisions VIIIc and

IXa).

o Southern four-spot megrim (Lepidorhombus boscii in ICES Divisions VIIIc

and IXa).

o Iberian Functional Units of Norway lobster (Nephrops novergicus):

FU 25 (ICES Division VIIIc North Galicia).

FU 26 (ICES Division IXa West Galicia).

FU 27 (ICES Division IXa North Portugal).

FU 28 (ICES Division IXa Alentejo, Southwest Portugal).

FU 29 (ICES Division IXa Algarve, South Portugal).

FU 30 (ICES Division IXa Gulf of Cádiz, South Spain).

FU 31 (ICES Division VIIIc Spanish Bay of Biscay).

1 Since 2005, this WG includes the Nephrops stocks previously assessed in the “ICES working group on Nephrops stocks” (WGHNEP).

3


The pelagic stocks are assessed by 2 WG’s:

o the “ICES Working Group on the Assessment of Mackerel, Horse mackerel,

Sardine and Anchovy” (WGMHSA):

Northeast Atlantic Mackerel (Scomber scombrus in ICES Divisions

IIa, IIIabd, IV, Vb, VI, VII, VIIIa-e, IXa, XII and XIV).

Western Horse Mackerel (Trachurus trachurus in ICES Divisions IIa,

IIIa (Western Part), IVa, Vb, VIa, VIIa–c, VIIe–k, and VIIIa-e).

Southern Horse Mackerel (Trachurus trachurus in ICES Division IXa).

Sardine (Sardina pilchardus in ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa).

Anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus in ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa).

o and the “ICES Working Group of the Northern Pelagic and Blue Whiting

fisheries” (WGNPBW):

Blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou in ICES Sub-areas I and II,

Division IIIa, and Sub-areas IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XII and XIV).

All of the stocks above are managed by limitation of catches (TAC) and technical measures.

However, the limitation of fishing effort, which was specially highlighted in the last Common

Fishery Policy reform, has been recently applied in the area by means the “Recovery Plan of

the Southern hake and Norway lobster stocks in the Cantabrian Sea and Western Iberian

Peninsula” (CE 2166/2005). This plan aims to rebuild the stock to within safe biological

limits entangling a mixed TAC and effort control system.

1.3. IBERMIX objectives

Taking into account all the points expounded above, the IBERMIX project was designed in

order to achieve the following objectives:

1. Identification of fleets/fisheries/métiers:

Compilation of available information of catch/economic profiles by trip and

fishing activities features.

Analysis of that information by multivariate statistical techniques for obtaining

homogeneous fishing units (métiers).

2. Data disaggregated by métier:

Application of the results obtained in the previous stage to the respective

“National Sampling Programmes” for establishing a standard methodology which

permits to obtain métier-disaggregated data.

Obtaining of métier-disaggregated fishing data.

4


3. Supplying WG’s with results:

Presentation of the redefined fishing units (métiers) to the ICES assessment

working groups where the stocks related to the case study fisheries are yearly

assessed.

Providing métier-disaggregated fishing data in the STECF and ICES meetings

responsible of carrying out mixed-fisheries management.

Attending the STECF and ICES meetings related to management strategies for

the Atlantic Iberian Peninsula waters.

This IBERMIX final report is split between the main text and various annexes which include

gear descriptions, legislation and a code glossary. The main text itself includes descriptions

of the fleets in section 2. Section 3 covers the data analysis carried out in order to identify

the métiers into each fleet. Section 4 describes the work made for compiling the catch data

disaggregated by the métiers obtained in Section 3 and its supply and use in the assessment

working groups. Section 5 details the main conclusions.

In order to conform to the text of the contract, the IBERMIX project has successfully covered

both the main objectives: the analysis for all the mixed fisheries involved in the area and the

respective data compilation.

5

6


2. Fleets reviewed

The Atlantic Iberian Peninsula shelf contains ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa, including the

Portuguese and the Atlantic Spanish coasts. From the North to the South this area is formed

by the Spanish part of the Bay of Biscay (VIIIc East), the Galician coast (VIIIc West and IXa

North), the Portuguese coast (IXa Centre and South) and the Gulf of Cádiz (IXa Southeast)

(Map 2-a). Administrative reasons made it more feasible to divide the tasks of the IBERMIX

project between countries, so that AZTI and IEO have taken on the responsibility of the

Spanish fleets’ analyses and IPIMAR on the Portuguese fleets.

2.1. Spanish fleets

The Atlantic Spanish coast is interrupted by the Portuguese coast, emphasizing extremely

the gradual change of the oceanographic features along the coast. In fact, the Southern part

is considered a subtropical zone, while the Galician and the Bay of Biscay waters are in a

subtropical-boreal transition area of the Eastern Atlantic, where typical temperate water and

boreal species cohabit together. These differences have favoured an independent

development of the fisheries from both the Northern and the Southern Atlantic Spanish

coasts, making more suitable to deal with both geographical areas separately.

2.1.1. Spanish fleets operating in the Northern Spanish Atlantic waters

Oceanographically, two different areas can also be distinguished in the Northern Iberian

Region: the Bay of Biscay, with a diminishing Atlantic influence towards the interior of the

Bay of Biscay, and the Galician waters with high Atlantic influence driven by the Gulf current

and important upwelling phenomena.

Commercially, this region has traditionally been an area of intensive fishing activity catching

a wide variety of species of commercial interest as hake (Merluccius merluccius), white

anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius), black anglerfish (L. budegassa), megrim (Lepidorhombus

wiffiagonis), four spot megrim (L. boscii), horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus), mackerel

(Scomber scombrus), chub mackerel (S. japonicus), blue whiting (Micromesistius

poutassou), sardine (Sardina pilchardus), anchovy (Engraulis encrasicholus) or Norway

lobster (Nephrops norvegicus). The Northern Iberian Region is also an important nursery

ground for some of them, mainly hake, sardine, horse mackerel, and blue whiting.

From the fishing point of view, the most important of the previous reviews of the Spanish

fleets operating in the Northern Spanish coast was made in the “STECF Southern Hake Task

Force” (STECF, 1994). This review was made taking into account hake as the principal target

species and using the sampling data of the period 1986-1993. In that period, some

important changes were noted in the Northern Spanish coastal trawl fleet regarding the past,

particularly a decrease of the demersal species traditionally targeted was making way for an

7


important increase of pelagic species landings. Nevertheless, the rest of the Northern

Spanish fleets described (purse seine, set long line and set gillnet) were found keeping the

same traditional characteristics. No information about the drifting long line fleet and the

artisanal fleet, defined as small scale fleet using a variety of artisanal gears, were included in

the STECF report.

Since this report, changes observed in the evolution of the Northern Spanish coastal fleets

were investigated in forward works (Lart et al., 2002; STECF/SGRST, 2002; Punzón et al.,

2001; Bellido et al., 2003; STECF/SGMOS, 2003; Castro and Punzón, 2005). Nevertheless,

no definitive revisions integrated into an international working group were made until the

presentation of the IBERMIX results to the 2007 ICES WGHMM (see Section 4).

Currently, the Northern Spanish coastal fleets are officially categorized as bottom trawl,

purse seine, drifting longline, set longline, set gillnet (“volanta” and “rasco”), and minor-gear

fleet (small scale fleet using a variety of gears as traps, “beta” gillnets, etc…). Even though

the minor-gear fleet represents around 89% in number of total vessels, it represents 26% of

the total gross tonnage (Table 2.1.1-a). Comparing the 2006 census with the average of the

period 1989-1993 (STECF, 1994), there has been a decrease of 64% in the total number of

vessels, being higher in the fixed gear fleets (Figure 2.1.1-a). The mobile gear fleets, trawl

and purse seine, are currently responsible of 95% of the total landings (Figure 2.1.1-b).

From an administrative point of view, the Northern Spanish Atlantic coast is compounded by

four Regional Communities with different number of important ports (Map 2.1.1-a): Asturias

(Avilés and Gijón); Basque Country (Ondárroa), Cantabria (Santander), and Galicia (A

Coruña, Burela, Celeiro, Marín, Muros, Ribeira and Vigo). Analyzing the total number of trips,

around 68% of trips are landed in Galicia (Figure 2.1.1-c). Disaggregating by fleet, different

fleets stand out in each Regional Community: trawl and gillnet in Asturias, purse seine in

Basque Country, gillnets in Cantabria, and trawl gillnet and purse seine in Galicia (Figure

2.1.1-d).

In terms to facilitate both the analysis and the showing of results in this report, the Northern

Spanish coastal fleets will be split by fishing gear category as mobile and fixed gears. That

division permits to avoid confusing terminology, as “artisanal” when is indistinctly used for

referring to both the small scale fleet and any fleet using fixed gears.

8


2.1.1.1. Northern Spanish coastal fleet using mobile gears

The Northern Spanish coastal fleet using mobile gears is compounded by trawlers, purse-

seiners, drifting longliners, and part of the minor-gear fleet which uses dredges. During

2005, a new gear (twin trawl) focused in catching anglerfish appeared opportunistically in

some ports based on Basque Country.

Northern Spanish coastal trawl fleet (BT)

The Northern Spanish coastal trawl fleet is known to have undergone several technical

changes through the last century, when the most significant industrial progress took place.

Analysis from the period 1989-1993 showed that hake, the main target species in 70’s, had

fell until 6% of total weight landed, while catches of other species such as blue whiting and

horse mackerel had increased up to 47% and 18%, respectively (STECF, 1994). This

increasing trend in landings of pelagic species can be followed exploring the 2003-2005

logbooks, where mackerel and horse mackerel catches raise up to 25%, while hake

decreases to 4% (Figure 2.1.1.1-a).

At the end of 80’s and early 90’s this fleet included bottom otter trawlers (OTB) and bottom

pair trawlers (PTB). Regarding the OTB fleet, it is known that this fleet has evolved in such a

way that several kinds of trawl gears have been included in their fishing strategies through

last years, being the most frequently used the “baca” and the “jurelera” gears. The first one,

the traditional trawl gear used by targeting demersal species, has a codend mesh size of 65

mm, a vertical opening of 1.2-1.5 m and a wingspread of 22-25 m. The more recent

“jurelera” gear also uses a codend mesh size of 65 mm, however is able to achieve a vertical

opening of 5-5.5 m and a wingspread of 18-20 m, being suitable for targeting horse

mackerel and other pelagic species (Fonseca et al., 2000). The “baca” trawl trips last from 1

to 10 days, with hauls of 1 to 8 hours depending on the weather condition, the species

targeted or the area being fished, and employ between 3 and 9 crewmembers. The “jurelera”

trawl trips are shorter, from 1 to 2 days, with hauls of 2 to 6 hours, and between 3 and 10

crewmembers (Lart et al., 2002). More recent investigations (Pérez et al., 2006) have shown

that the “baca” gear, which was believed to be the traditional gear used for targeting

demersal species, has actually been replaced by two different types (Annex I): “raspita” and

“cuatro caras” (four sides). Both of them reach a similar vertical opening (Table 2.1.1.1-a)

and present a similar catch composition, however the “raspita” gear seems to be more

efficient catching hake while the “4 sides” gear catch more blue whiting (Table 2.1.1.1-b).

Nevertheless, the combined use of the described gears during the same trip makes it

especially difficult to split the OTB fleet into different components. Therefore, some analytical

investigations have been carried out in order to find an analytical solution for segmenting

this fishery (Punzón et al., 2001; Bellido, et al., 2003; and Castro and Punzón, 2005),

nevertheless, they could not be applied to the total catches due to be based on partial data.

9


The other group of bottom trawlers operating in the Northern Spanish coastal waters, the

PTB fleet, uses a specific gear with a cod end mesh size of between 45-55 mm, which is able

to achieve a vertical opening of around 25 m and a wingspread of 65 m (Fonseca et al.,

2000). Their trips last from 1 to 2 days, with hauls of 5 to 15 hours, and employ between 4

and 9 crewmembers (Lart et al., 2002). In relation to its fishing behaviour, this fleet has

been always assumed to be very homogeneous, with most of the vessels targeting mainly

blue whiting by using similar fishing techniques. However, some detailed studies found a

small component with a catch profile in which other species showed more importance than

blue whiting (Castro and Punzón, 2005).

Analyzing the 2003-2005 landings by both trawl fleets, it can be observed that OTB is mainly

targeting horse mackerel and mackerel with the demersal species traditionally appreciated in

the Spanish markets (hake, megrim, monk and Norway lobster) (Figure 2.1.1.1-b; Table

2.1.1.1-c). Regarding PTB, its fishing strategy is specially efficient targeting blue whiting

(69%) but also produces important catches of hake (Figure 2.1.1.1-c; Table 2.1.1.1-c).

Under an administrative point of view, most of the both fleet’s catches, OTB and PTB, are

landed in Galician ports.

Northern Spanish coastal purse seine fleet (PS)

In 2006 a total of 346 vessels were registered as purse seiners, and changes in gear do not

occur during the year except in summer, when part of the fleet switches to “curricán”

(trolling lines) or “cebo vivo” (bait boat) for tuna fishing. This fishery behaves in two main

ways, on one hand taking advantage of resources with a marked seasonal character such as

anchovy, mackerel (in VIIIc East), sardine (in IXa North) or tuna (caught using curricán),

and on the other a series of resources that are always present in the area, such as horse

mackerel.

Vessels must be over 11 m in length, and so most of the effort and catches are registered in

logbooks, and at most can only work 5 days a week, resting continuously for 48 hours per

week. The gear has a maximum length of 600 m excluding the purses, whose maximum size

is 30 m, with a maximum height of 130 m and mesh size of 14 mm (Annex I).

Regarding the catch composition, the current purse seine landings show an increase of

medium pelagic species (horse mackerel and mackerel) and a decrease of small pelagic

species (sardine and anchovy). In the particular case of the decrease in the anchovy

landings, it must be noted than this fishery was collapsed in 2005 (Figure 2.1.1.1-d; Table

2.1.1.1-d). As in the trawl fleets, the purse seine catches are mainly landed in the Galician

ports, being distributed throughout a greater variety of ports (Figure 2.1.1.1-e).

10


Northern Spanish coastal drifting longline fleet (LLD)

From the 70 vessels registered as drifting longline in the Northern Spanish ports, the

majority targets swordfish in oceanic waters and only a small but unknown number of them

operates in the Spanish waters. This last group presents two different fishing strategies: on

the one hand, fishing blue shark (Prionace glauca) from June to October and; on the other,

exploiting seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) throughout the whole year. The first fishery is

clearly monospecific, while the second one is accompanied by white seabream (Diplodus

sargus) and gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) (Punzón and Gancedo, 1998).

Northern Spanish coastal minor-gear fleet using mobile gears

Around 20% of the Northern Spanish coastal minor-gear fleet uses mobile gears, mainly

dredges (“rastro”). Dredges are specifically used for exploiting bivalves in the Galician

coastal areas, such as grooved carpet shell clam (Ruditapes decusatus), pullet carpet shell

clam (Venerupis pullastra) or common edible cockle (Cerastoderma edule). However, the

whole Northern Spanish coastal minor-gear fleet is mainly compounded by vessels smaller

than 10 m, so that logbooks give very scarce information about the dredge fleet landings. In

addition to dredges other small-scale vessels use mobile gears, as hand lines which change

temporary to “curricán” (trolling lines) in areas of the Bay of Biscay. Trolling lines are used

during the “costera” fishery, a typical seasonal fishery directed to albacore (Thunnus

alalunga) during its migration near the Northern Spanish coast.

2.1.1.2. Northern Spanish coastal fleets using fixed gears

The fixed gear fleet is compounded of vessels officially registered by gear type: “palangre”

(set longline), “volanta” (set gillnet of 90 mm mesh size), “rasco” (set gillnet of 280 mm

mesh size directed to monkfish), and “artes menores” (minor gears: mainly the small scale

fleet using a variety of small gears).

Comparing the catch composition between fixed gear categories show than long line is more

efficient catching fish, specially those with more pelagic behaviour, while gillnet and trammel

are better for crustaceans, cephalopods, and benthic fish (Table 2.1.1.2-a).

Northern Spanish coastal set longline fleet (LLS)

The Northern Spanish coastal set longline fleet is compounded of those vessels officially

registered as bottom longliners and those small scale vessels using minor longlines. Most of

them develop monospecific fisheries, although they can change throughout the year taking

advantage of the stock seasonality or the market prices. As a result, part of the set longline

fleet can form a part of the “costera” fishery, a typical seasonal fishery directed to albacore

11


(Thunnus alalunga) during its migration near the Northern Spanish coast by using trolling

lines, or make small adaptations for changing from bottom longline to handline, etc.

A set longline consists of a main line with a number of branch lines of variable length spaced

several metres apart, from which a baited hook is hung down. The gear is fixed on or near

the bottom with weights and attached to a buoy (Annex I). The number of hooks, distance of

branch lines on the main line and length depends on the target species. The Spanish

regulations for the registered set longline fleet establish the maximum legal number of hooks

at 4,000 and a maximum longline of 15,000 m length.

As there are many target species the basic longline structure can be specifically modified,

being the following the most common categories:

“Palangre” (bottom longline): directed to three main target species, i.e. hake,

pollack (Pollachius pollachius) and blackspot seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo). Even

though mixed trips are rare, clean trips are not due to changes in the strategy but

the availability of the species and market changes: hake between May and July,

when the best yields are obtained, while blackspot seabream is targeted in winter

despite the low catches, owing to the high price this species commands (Punzón et

al., 1999).

“Palangrón” (deep bottom longline): there are two target species of this gear:

greater forkbeard (Phycis blennoides) and conger (Conger conger). The only

difference between both fisheries is regarding the depth to which the longline is

lowered, being greater for forkbeard. Mixed fishing trips are common and there is no

seasonality. This fishing strategy is mainly used a fill-in between “costeras”. Trips

targeting forkbeard present blackmouth catshark (Galeus melastomus), moras

(Moridae) and forkbeard (Phycis phycis) as accompanying species (Punzón and

Gancedo, 1998). Nevertheless, there are no characteristic accompanying species

when conger is the target species. Besides, the deep bottom longline has recently

started to be used for catching deep-water sharks as birdbeak dogfish (Deania

calceus), leafscale gulper shark (Centrophorus squamosus), and Portuguese dogfish

(Centroscymnus coleolepis).

Regarding the catch composition, the differences between the current set long line landings

and the landings observed in the period 1989-1993 (STECF, 1994) are probably due to

misreporting and wrong allocation of gears in statistics. On the one hand, the most important

species in current landings, i.e. conger, had probably been assigned into the “others” group

in the STECF report; on the other hand, the high level of mackerel in 1989-1993 was surely

due to a wrong allocation of the hand lines into the set long line fleet (Figure 2.1.1.2-a)

(Pérez et al., 1996). Year 2005 had to be removed from the period in order to estimate a

more representative average catch composition, because the unusual catch of Atlantic

12


pomfret (Brama brama) in this year. Contrary to trawl fleets, the set longline trips are widely

distributed throughout a variety of landing ports (Figure 2.1.1.2-b).

Northern Spanish coastal set gillnet fleet (GNS)

The Northern Spanish coastal set gillnet fleet is compounded of those vessels officially

registered as “volanta” and “rasco”, as well as those small scale vessels using minor gillnets.

The first two gears are aiming primarily at hake and monkfish, respectively. Both fisheries

operate continuously throughout the whole year, and only part of the fleet interrupts

temporarily its activity to switch to mackerel hook lines or tuna trolling lines.

The set gillnet modality consists of a single netting wall, made up of several rectangular

pieces linked to each other and kept vertical by a float line and a weighted ground line. The

most important types of set gillnet gear used in the Northern Spanish waters are the

following gears (Pereda and Villamor, 1991; Pereda et al., 1998; Punzón and Gancedo,

1998):

“Volanta” gear uses a mesh size of 90 mm at depths between 100 and 400 m. Each

piece of netting has a maximum height of 10 m and a maximum total length of 50

m, while the maximum length permitted for the entire gear is 7,000 m. This modality

is used in the study area throughout the year to catch hake, except in certain ports

where there is some seasonality. The accompanying species are usually pout

(Trisopterus luscus), and to a lesser extent species of Triglidae. Currently, there is a

modification of the gear, used mainly in Asturias, known as “volanta marisquera”,

dedicated to the catch of edible crab (Cancer pagurus) and other crustaceans.

“Rasco” gear uses a mesh size of 280 mm at depths between 100-800 m. Each

piece of netting has a maximum height of 3.5 m and a maximum length of 50 m, and

the maximum total length permitted for the entire gear is 11,000 m. This gear is not

allowed at depths shallower than 50 m, and is specially designed to catch monkfishes

(Lophius budegassa and L. piscatorius). The most characteristic accompanying

species are rays (Raja spp.) and red scorpionfish (Scorpaena scropha). Catches of

crustaceans with this gear are common, such as spiny lobster (Palinurus elephas) or

lobster (Hommarus gammarus). The most important landings are made at the ports

of San Vicente de la Barquera and Santoña.

Regarding the catch composition, an increase in both main species (hake and monk) can be

observed in the current landings in relation to those registered in the period 1989-1993

(Figure 2.1.1.2-c). As in the case of longline, the Northern Spanish coastal gillnet trips are

widely distributed throughout a variety of landing ports (Figure 2.1.1.2-d).

13


Northern Spanish coastal minor-gear fleet using fixed gears

From a total of 6654 vessels of the minor-gear fleet, around 80% operate mainly by using

the following fixed gears:

Minor-gear fleet using hand lines (LHP) and set longline (LLS)

In the case of the minor-gear fleet, it is used a kind of small bottom longline (“palangrillo”)

which is allowed to be 3,000 m length with a total of 1,000 hooks at most. Moreover, it is

common to find the minor-gear fleet working with other gears, such as “potera” (jigging

lines) and hand lines. This last one is very monospecific, being directed to mackerel

(Scomber scombrus) between March and May to take advantage of the mackerel spawning

migration from east to west (Villamor et al., 1994 and 1997) mainly in Division VIIIc East.

This fishery involves vessels using hooks and gillnets in different periods of the year.

Minor-gear fleet using gillnet (GNS)

The gear mainly used by the minor-gear fleet is the small gillnet called “beta”. This net has

a general mesh size of 60 mm, extended to 80 mm when targeting sole and hake. It is set at

depths shallower than 150 m; each piece of netting can reach a maximum length of 50 m

and a maximum height of 3 m, while the maximum total length of the gear is 4,500 m. This

gear is not very selective and is mainly used to catch coastal species throughout the year,

targeting hake, red mullet (Mullus surmulletus) and other species from the families Labridae,

Triglidae or Scorpaenidae. There is a multitude of variations of this gear, which adapts well

to both topographical and oceanic conditions and also enables the combined catch of species

of interest.

Minor-gear fleet using trammel nets (GTR)

All the trammel nets are considered as minor gears, being compounded by three main types

of gear:

“Trasmallo”: trammel with three walls of netting, two outer nets of 400 mm mesh

size and one inner net of 60 mm. The maximum total length of the gear is less than

4,500 m, with measures of 50 m length and 2 m height by panel. This trammel

category is used throughout the year and shows many variations depending on the

target species: common and sand soles (Solea vulgaris and S. lascaris), wrasses

(Labridae), seabreams, octopus (Octopus vulgaris), etc.

Semi-tramelled nets with only two walls of netting, with one of the pieces of 60 mm

mesh size and the other of 400 mm.

14


“Miño”: trammel with three walls of netting, the outer nets being larger than 500

mm and the inner ones of 90 mm. The maximum length of each piece is 50 m and

the maximum height is 3 m, while the total length can be up to 4,500 m. The

information contained in logbooks regarding this gear is very scarce since only small

vessels work with it. The “miño” targets monk and, unlike “rasco”, it is used in areas

near the coast throughout the year. In certain areas it is also used for crustaceans as

spiny lobster (Palinurus elephas), lobster (Hommarus gammarus) and spiny spider

crab (Maja squinado). There is also a variation of this gear designed for catching

cuttlefish, called “cachonera”.

The trammel net fleet catch composition is very mixed since the “others” group shows the

highest percentage of total landings, being followed by monk (17%) and sharks (12%)

(Figure 2.1.1.2-e). As in the case of longline and gillnet, the Northern Spanish coastal

trammel trips are widely distributed throughout a variety of landing ports, showing small

local ports with the highest landings (Figure 2.1.1.2-e).

Minor-gear fleet using traps

The minor-gear fleet using traps in the Northern Atlantic Spanish coast exploits mainly

octopus and crustaceans by means a kind of trap called “nasa”.

The fisheries developed by all these fleets have traditionally been considered artisanal, as

they are performed from the vessel working in coastal grounds or very close to the coast, the

fishing trip never surpasses 24 h, and are part of the family sustenance (Punzón and

Gancedo, 2000). Although they are registered for a certain gear, these fleets often change

gear over the year depending on the target species, so that their fishing strategy can be

defined as multi-gear and multi-species. Regarding the technical features, the minor-gear

fleet is formed by vessel between 5 and 18 metres total length, so that their catches and

efforts are poorly represented in the logbooks.

2.1.2. Spanish fleets operating in the Southern Spanish Atlantic waters

(Gulf of Cádiz)

The Gulf of Cádiz waters are characterized by its high biological richness, which determines

the marked multi-specific nature of its fisheries and the employment of diverse types of

fishing gears. From the geographical point of view, its boundaries are delimited westward by

the Guadiana River mouth, the natural frontier with Portugal, and eastward by the Strait of

Gibraltar, whose hydrography plays an important role in the ecosystem and, consequently, in

its fishing activity (Map 2.1.2-a). The most important oceanographic feature is characterized

by the existence of a surface Atlantic current that flows towards the Mediterranean and a

deep Mediterranean counter-current that outflows into the Atlantic (Folkard et al., 1997).

The Gulf of Cádiz is also distinguished by important river discharges, as those from the

15


Rivers Guadiana and Guadalete, and mainly the River Guadalquivir, whose mouths constitute

essential nursery and growth habitats of numerous species of commercial interest (Arias and

Drake, 1990; Anonymus, 1999; Sobrino et al., 2005a).

Among species of commercial importance, 58% in weight correspond to fishes, 24% to

molluscs and 18% to crustaceans. The most relevant fish species are hake (Merluccius

merluccius), blue whiting (M. poutassou), anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus), wedge sole

(Dicologoglosa cuneata), blackspot seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo) and a number of other

sparid species. Within molluscs, the most important species is undoubtedly octopus (Octopus

vulgaris), together with the common cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) and a bivalve which is very

important from the socio-economic point of view, the striped venus clam (Chamalea gallina).

Lastly, among the crustacean group of species, the most significant species is deepwater

rose shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris) and at a lesser level, Norway lobster (Nephrops

norvegicus).

First descriptions of the fishing fleets that operate in the Gulf of Cádiz were done during the

early nineties (Sobrino et al., 1994). Since then, the different fleets have undergone

numerous changes, especially from the technological viewpoint that resulted from the

“Modernization Plan of the Andalusian Fishing Sector” carried out by the Autonomic

Administration at the end of the nineties and the beginning of the actual decade (Anon.,

1997; Anon., 2001). The decrease of the resources in the last years has also propitiated a

change in the exploitation strategy, especially in the trawl fishery which led to a substantial

reduction of the fleet.

Table 2.1.2-a show the mean features of the Southern Spanish coastal fleets. Even though

the artisanal fleet represents around 62% in number of total vessels, it represents 25% of

the total tonnage.

2.1.2.1. Gulf of Cádiz fleets using mobile gears

The Gulf of Cádiz fleet using mobile gears is mainly composed of trawlers, purse seiners,

drifting long liners and dredgers.

The comparison between the trawl and purse seine gear show great differences from the

point of view of exploitation strategy due to the particular characteristics of each fishing gear

(Table 2.1.2.1-a). The trawl fishery observes a high degree of multi-specificity, among which

most important are hake, octopus, shrimp, cuttlefish and blue whiting. In contrast, the purse

seine fishery is mainly targeting anchovy, sardine and mackerel. With regards to anchovy,

the actual legislation prohibits the catch of this species with trawl gear (RD 632/1993).

Nevertheless, their catch by trawling was rather high in past times. The purse seine landings

are much higher (an annual average of 14,000 t) than the trawl landings (7,400 t).

16


Gulf of Cádiz otter bottom trawl fleet (OTB)

The Gulf of Cádiz trawl fleet is mainly composed of small vessels. Till the end of nineties, this

fleet was traditionally divided into clearly differentiated types of vessels categorized by their

size and their horsepower, which conditioned their navigation capability as well as their

access to particular fishing grounds (Jiménez, 2002; Jiménez et al, 2004). Currently, due to

the “Modernization Plan of the Andalusian Fishing Sector” implemented at the end of the

nineties (Anon., 1997), the differences between the fishing vessels were lessened as a

consequence of the homogenization and restructuring that mostly affected the trawl fleet.

At present, the trawl fleet is mainly composed of around 200 vessels. Their average

characteristics are 17.9 m length, 222 HP and 32 GRT. The traditional trawl gear used is the

“baca” gear with some modifications (Anon., 2001). Accordingly, the gear setting and their

technical characteristics are in consonance with the technological advances of the vessels, as

well as on the types of seabeds trawled and on the bio-ecological characteristics of the

exploited species (Ramos et al., 1995). A common modification consists in placing a chain in

front of the foot-rope, to catch semi-buried species that inhabit soft bottoms.

In respect to fishing grounds within the study area, there are great extensions of sea

bottoms of unconsolidated nature, such as gravel, sandy and muddy bottoms. Consequently,

the Gulf of Cádiz trawl fleet shows great spatial amplitude, from the geographic, as well as

the bathymetric perspective (Sobrino, 1998). Until 1996, when the work of Ramos et al.

(1995) describing in detail all the fishing grounds of the study area was published, the

knowledge of the geographic and bathymetric characteristics exploited by the trawl fleet was

practically inexistent. The only references on this topic were quite old and did not provide

any cartographic information (Morales, 1944), or were referred to fishing grounds that were

partly exploited by the trawl fleet (Muñoz, 1972).

The trawl fishing regulations of the Gulf of Cádiz are found in the RD 632/1993. Since 2004,

Annual Fishing Plans have been implemented by the Spanish Administration with the

objective of reducing fishing effort. Among its foremost aspects, a decrease of the number of

daily fishing hours was put into practice, which obliged the vessels to rest at port during

nighttimes (Orden APA 3423/2004). Furthermore, a seasonal closure of 45 days during the

fourth quarter of the year was applied to the whole fleet. In relation to more general aspects,

a ban was applied on fishing at distances less than 6 miles from the coast and the funnel net

mesh size was fixed to 40 mm.

Gulf of Cádiz purse seine fleet (PS)

The traditional fishery of the Gulf of Cádiz targeting small pelagic coastal species is

developed by purse seines, whose operative number of vessels has remained rather constant

during the last 14 years. This fleet is mainly directed towards anchovy (Engraulis

17


encrasicolus), although during the last years sardine (Sardina pilchardus) has exceeded their

landings.

At present, the fleet consists of 104 vessels, which comprise vessels that are permanently

dedicated to the fishery, as well as those that practice purse seine fishing in a seasonal

manner (trawl and artisanal vessels). The univalent fleet comprises 90% of the total purse

seine vessels. This fleet is divided into two types of vessels according to their technical

characteristics: vessels with higher tonnage (26% of the fleet) that have in average a GTR of

48.9 t, 358 HP and an overall length of 19.4 m; and vessels with lower tonnage (74% of the

fleet) that registered in average a GTR of 14.8 t, 132 HP and an overall length of 14.1 m.

Both segments of the fleet exploit the anchovy and sardine stocks, indistinctly.

The fleet of greater tonnage was traditionally fishing in Morocco until the end of 1999 when

the fishing activity ceased, mainly affecting the fishing port of Barbate. Since 2000 to May of

the present year (2007), the fleet has been operating in the Gulf of Cádiz. With renewal of

the Fishing Treaty between the European Union and Morocco, part of this fleet has returned

to the Moroccan fishing grounds.

Some vessels, around 16 units, alternate purse seine with other fishing gears (trawl and

minor-gear gears) throughout the year. They shift towards purse seine from May to October

(6 months) for targeting mostly horse mackerel. This fleet has undergone a reduction of

76%, passing from 66-70 units during 1993-1994 to the actual l6 vessels.

All these fleets use a similar purse seine gear. Basically, the fishing maneuver consists in

encircling fish schools within the purse seine and closing the bottom of the net with a lead

line to concentrate the fish before hauling on board the catch. The characteristics and

dimensions of this purse seine gear vary depending on the vessel length and its tonnage, as

well as on fishing grounds. A detailed description of the technical characteristics of these

gears is reported by Millán (1999) and Anon. (2001).

At present, the purse seine fishery is regulated by a specific Gulf of Cádiz Fishing Plan (Order

APA/3239/2006). The most noteworthy regulation of the Fishing Plan is the enforcement of a

closed season of 60 days during the fourth quarter of the year, establishing 5 fishing days

per week and the limitation of catch for the two target species, anchovy and sardine, during

the rest of the year.

Minor-gear fleet using mobile gears

Within the category of minor-gear fleet there is a small number of vessels using drifting

longline (LLD). These vessels target mainly swordfish (Xiphias gladius) and sharks, among

which the most prominent is the tope shark (Galeorhynus galeus). Thus, the fishery is

specifically directed to these species showing a marked seasonality during the second half of

18


the year. All the characteristics of the drifting longlines used in the fishery, as well as all the

aspects related to this fishing activity is regulated by RD 1428/1997 and in its subsequent

modifications by RD 284/2006.

At the same time, around 75 vessels, with an average of 9.6 m length, operate using

dredges (HMD) for targeting striped venus clam (Chamallea gallina). Landings during the

past years have surpassed 3,000 t. The vessels have a hydraulic dredge located in the ship’s

bow that pumps water over the bottom of the sea. References and regulation of this type of

gear is contemplated in the Order January 28, 2000. Other vessels that can also fish striped

venus clam among other bivalves use the teeth bar dredges. According to the last ship

census, the number of vessels of this fishing modality amount to a total of 46 vessels.

The main ports of the hydraulic dredge fleet are Isla Cristina and Punta Umbría (province of

Huelva), and Sanlúcar de Barrameda (province of Cádiz). These are the only ports in which

striped venus clams is landed. The fishing grounds of this species are mainly distributed over

the coasts of the province of Huelva, in areas of soft seabed of sandy or sandy-muddy

nature, being the most important located in the National Park of Doñana coast. The fishery is

carried out in shallow coastal waters, but this practice is prohibited in riverine or estuarine

waters, as well as in depths less than 5 meters.

The fishery is managed through Fishing Plans implemented by the Andalusian Autonomic

Government (Order 22nd January 2007), in which it is worth mentioning the fact that tares

on the catch were applied. Actually, these are fixed to 200 kg for dredges and to 100 kg for

teeth bar dredges. Moreover, a closed season of 45 days was set for the second trimester of

the year. Likewise, the actual Fishing Plan covers all the aspects related with the fishing

activity, as fishing effort, vessel and gear characteristics, working hours and days and fishing

grounds.

2.1.2.2. Gulf of Cádiz fleet using fixed gears

The Gulf of Cádiz fleet that operates with fixed fishing gears is categorized under the minor-

gear category. A license for minor gears (“artes menores”) is required to carry out this type

of fishing activity, including trammel and gillnets, as well as hook and trap fishing (RD

1428/1997 and RD 284/2006).

Currently, this minor-gear fleet comprises 503 small fishing vessels. It approximately

represents 62% of the total demersal fleet of the Gulf of Cádiz. The vessels are on average

10 m long, having 6 GTR and 55 HP. It represents a low contribution to the total GTR (36%)

and HP (38%) of the demersal fleet.

The relative importance of the target species of the different fleets are shown in Table

2.1.2.2-a. From the landings viewpoint, longlines are most important with 400 t on average,

19


although it is worth mentioning that a significant increase of traps throughout the study

period has been detected, owing to the great increase of octopus landings by the artisanal

and trawl fleet. Concerning species composition, net gears show higher diversity than traps

and set longlines. The low and biased coverage from logbooks cause important variations

between years, as observed in trammel net fishing whose catch has increased by four in

2005.

Although the same license is required for the whole minor-gear fleet using every type of

fixed gear, it is managed by endorsing the use of only one gear per fishing trip (RD

1428/1997). However, it is known that the use of various types of fishing gear constitutes a

habitual practice.

Gulf of Cádiz minor-gear fleet using longline (LLS)

Bottom longlines are preferably used in the eastern part of the fishing grounds by the fleets

of Conil and Barbate, while a small number of vessels exploit the western area. There is a

particular bottom longline directed to sparid species, the European conger, forkbeards

(Phycis spp.) and rubberlip grunt (Plectorhinchus mediterraneus), among others. Maximum

length is set to 4,000 m and a maximum number of hooks to 2,000. Hook size is dependent

on the target species.

A very particular fishery is that of the blackspot seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo) locally called

“voraz”, whose gear denomination refers to the common name of the species, “voracera”

(see Annex I). The fishing grounds are in the waters around Gibraltar Strait. The gear has

the particularity that before the hook line is set, a cement block of 25 kg is cast to assure

that the gear reaches the bottom. This fishery has a specific regulation that is contemplated

in the Fishing Plan where the technical characteristics of the gear, fishing grounds, minimum

size, authorized vessels and effort related aspects are covered (Order APA 8/2006).

Furthermore, a closed area and biological stop of 60 days is enforced during the first quarter

of the year.

The search for new fishing grounds for the spotted seabream has developed a fishery

targeting the silver scabbardfish (Lepidopus caudatus). It is mainly carried out by vessels

from Barbate and Conil that use a gear called “piedrabola” (see Annex I). A ruling on effort

regulation exists in relation to the vessels from the nearby fishing grounds (Order

APA/50/2005).

20


Gulf of Cádiz minor-gear fleet using set gillnet (GNS)

Among the fixed fishing gear, gillnets are the most frequently used in the Gulf of Cádiz

fishing grounds, targeting on a number of species. The target species determine the mesh

size to be use. Larger mesh size is preferred for meagre (Argyrosomus regius) and some

species of the genus Dentex (D. gibbosus, D. dentex). Smaller mesh size is used for the

catch of seabreams (Diplodus spp.), common and red pandora (Pagellus erytrinus, Pagellus

belloti), seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax, Dicentrarchus punctatus) and hake (Merluccius

merluccius), among others.

The dimensions of the gear in relation to the target species is contemplated in the regulation

RD 1428/1997. However, there are protected areas as the Fishing Reserve that were

recently established in front of the National Park of Doñana (Order June 16th 2004) in which

the mesh size for the meagre is set from 80-140 mm and from 55-65 mm for seabream and

seabass (Sobrino et al., 2005)

Gulf of Cádiz minor-gear fleet using trammel nets (GTR)

Another group of fixed gear is the trammel nets which may be categorized under two types.

A first group denominated as “claros” includes those whose inner panel of the net has a

greater mesh size than those denominated “ciegos” which have a smaller mesh size. The

first one is used for species as cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) and sole (Solea sp.), while the

second group is used preferably for caramote prawn (Melicertus kerathurus), wedge sole

(Dicologoglossa cuneata) and red mullet (Mullus surmuletus). There is a special trammel net

which is directed to the wedge sole that may be considered as a trammel net due to the

presence of zigzag suspenders (“tirantas”) that reduce the net’s height. In the Fishing

Reserve where the trammel net fishing is most important, the mesh size is set to 20-25 mm

for caramote prawn and wedge sole, and 45-50 m for cuttlefish (Sobrino et al., 2005a). In all

cases, the size of nets cannot exceed a length of 4,500 m length and a height of 4 m.

Gulf of Cádiz minor-gear fleet using traps (FPO)

Traps are widely used in the region, especially in the form of clay pots, locally named

“alcatruces” or in the form of creel traps (“nasas”). The clay pot fishery, specialized in

targeting octopus, is set by lines with clay pots separated by 10 m. These may be set in two

manners: either forming lines of 50-70 pots forming a labyrinth, or set in lines of 100-250

pots parallel to the coast (see Annex I). Each pot assemblage has two buoys marking the

beginning and end of each line. This type of fishing activity is carried out mainly in the

western part of the region where bottoms are not too hard and the currents are not intense

(Silva and Sobrino, 2005).

21


Lastly, the fishery based on creel traps may be categorized in two types: those directed to

fish species as well as molluscs (1 m in height and a diameter of 0.6 m) and those targeting

exclusively on octopus, smaller in size (see Annex I). Both gears are set by lines at depths

not over 70-80 m, similarly to the clay pot fishery. The regulation of both types of trap

fisheries is contemplated in RD 1428/1997. The maximum number of clay pots is set to

1,000 per vessel, while for traps it is set to 250.

2.2. Portuguese fleets

Portuguese continental coast is part of the Atlantic Iberian Peninsula extending from latitude

41°20' N to 36°30' N, 07º 30´W. At north it makes boundary with the Spanish Galician coast

and at south with the Spanish coast of the Gulf of Cádiz. Portugal mainland coast has 942

km and it is included in ICES Division IXa.

Several Portuguese studies have been published concerning the description of the

Portuguese fisheries, fishing fleets, gear characteristics, selectivity and discards practices.

The first and historical description of the Portuguese fleet was done by Baldaque da Silva

(1891) and Eça (1909). Statistics of the landings and effort of the Portuguese trawl can be

found in old studies, such as Ramalho (1956), Oliveira and Moura (1973). Preliminary

selectivity studies on trawl mesh sizes for hake and horse mackerel were reported in

Monteiro (1966), Cardador (1986), Fonseca et al. (1998) and Cardador and Borges (1991).

More recent work on trawl selectivity was undertaken within the TRASEL UE project (Fonseca

et al, 2000), followed by studies related to changes in mesh configuration and use of

separator panels such as Campos et al (2002, 2003b), Campos and Fonseca (2003, 2004),

Fonseca et al (2002, 2007). Preliminary discards estimations and practices from the

commercial trawl fleet are described in Fernandes et al (2006a, 2006b, 2007). Discards from

five of the most important fisheries (crustacean trawling, fish trawling, demersal purse

seining, pelagic purse seining and trammel netting) in southern Portugal were studied and

compared in Borges et al (2001) and Erzini et al (2002). The use of GPS data in the

crustacean fleet to map effort and landings was performed in a DGXIV study (Afonso-Dias et

al, 2002). The definition of fleet components in the bottom trawl fishery is presented in

Campos et al (2007). The Portuguese purse seine CPUE and effort are standardized in

Parente (2001, 2004), while the fishery is described in Wise et al (2005).

For the artisanal fleet several studies on the small scale fleet were published, some of them

including gear descriptions and illustrations, such as, Costa et al (1984), Martins (1996),

Franca et al (1998) and Carneiro et al (2006). Results from studies on gillnet selectivity are

found in Martins et al (1990) and Fonseca et al (2005). Fleet components on the South

Atlantic artisanal fishery were analysed on a DGXIV study (Afonso-Dias et al, 1999) and

Palma et al (1999).

22


The fishery units operating in Portuguese continental waters were described in the report of

the “Southern Hake Task Force” meeting (STECF, 1994). In this report an overall description

of the fleet components is presented, e.g., trawl (crustacean and fish), artisanal and purse

seine. The description includes the main characteristics of the gears, vessels and target

species, using information of the period 1990-1993.

Fishing in the Portuguese continental waters is carried out by three fleets: trawl, purse

seine and polyvalent.

In 2005, the total landings from these fleets were 130,000 tonnes (INE, 2006), of which

42% were landed by purse seines, 41% by polyvalent fleet and 17% by trawl (Figure 2.2-a).

In terms of economic value it corresponded to 212 millions of Euros (value in the auction

sales), being 67%, 17% and 16% from polyvalent, trawl and purse seine, respectively. When

compared with 1996 landings (164,000 t), purse seine represented 58%, polyvalent 29%

and trawl 13%. In terms of value, the multi-gear contribution in 1996 was 59%, purse seine

23% and trawls 18% (INE-DGPA, 1998) (Figure 2.2-b). These values indicate an increase in

the contributions of the polyvalent and trawl fleet landings in 2005 in relation to 1996 while

the purse seine has decreased.

Along the Portuguese coast there is almost one hundred fishing harbours, being the majority

of them of small importance in terms of landings recorded. The most important fishing

harbours are 16 and the designation and localization are indicated in Map 2.2-a as well as

the corresponding regions considered. The north zone comprised the fishing harbours from

Viana Castelo until Nazaré, the southwest from Peniche until Sagres and the south (Algarve)

includes the fishing harbours from Sagres to Vila Real Santo António. In 2005 the majority of

the Portuguese catches were landed in Matosinhos (17%), Peniche (16%), Olhão (11%) and

Sesimbra (10%) (Figure 2.2-c). In the same year, the most important fishing harbours

(Figure 2.2-d) for trawl in terms of weight landed were Matosinhos, Aveiro, Portimão and

Figueira Foz; for purse seine were Peniche, Matosinhos, Sines and Figueira Foz and for the

polyvalent fleet were Olhão, Sesimbra and Matosinhos.

The 2005 landings in weight by region and by fleet component shown in Map 2.2-b indicate

that purse seine was more important in the fishing harbours of the north (43%) and of the

southwest (50%) while in the south the polyvalent component is dominant (58%). Trawl

landings are slightly higher in the northern fishing harbours (23%), being at the same level

in the southwest and in south (12% and 15%, respectively).

23


2.2.1. Portuguese fleet using mobile gears

Portuguese trawl fleet

The trawl fleet comprises two components, e.g., trawl fleet fishing for fish and trawl fleet

fishing for crustaceans. The trawl fleet fishing for fish operates off the entire coast while the

trawl fleet directed to crustaceans operates mainly in the Southwest and South, in deep

waters, where crustaceans are more abundant. The fish trawlers are licensed to use a mesh

size >= 65 mm in the codend and the crustacean trawlers are licensed for two different

mesh sizes, 55 mm for catching shrimps and >= 70 mm for Norway lobster.

In 2005, the number of licensed fish trawlers was 72 with an average of 705 HP (518kW),

182 GRT and 27 m of overall length, whereas the number of crustacean trawlers was 30,

with an average of 563 HP (414 kW), 178 GRT and 25 m of overall length. The main

characteristics of the fish and crustacean trawl fleets recording landings in 2005 are shown in

Figure 2.2.1-a. The values indicated for engine power (kW), length-over-all (m) and Gross

tonnage (GRT) are specified by region of registration and refer to the minimum, maximum

and median values, together with upper and lower quartiles. Considering the fish trawlers,

the mean engine power was higher for trawlers of the north region (571.0 kW), which

comprised 53 units, followed by the southwest region with 4 units (542.6 kW) and the south

region with 12 units (377.7 kW). The same importance is retained for gross tonnage and

length-over-all, e.g., mean GRT 206.9 and 28.8 m in the north, 171.7 GRT and 24.4 m in

southwest and 114.4 GRT and 23.1 m in the south. The year of construction as indicated in

Figure 2.2.1-b shows that fish trawlers are more aged in the south region with 1976 as the

mean year; in the north the mean year of construction is 1987 and in the southwest is 1998.

In general, the fish trawlers operating in 2005 have 27.6 m, 188.7 GRT and 537.7 kW. The

year of construction ranges from 1943 to 2005, with an average of 1986 (19 years old).

The majority of the crustacean trawlers which had landed in Portuguese harbours in 2005

were registered in the south (19 units) with a mean GRT of 167.9, 24.7 m of mean length

and 412.2 kW of mean engine power. The north comprised 3 units with mean values of 24.5

m, 201.4 GRT and 441.2 kW; the southwest had only 2 units with 24.0 m and an average of

178.4 GRT and 441.1 kW. The older and more recent vessels are registered in the south. On

the whole, the crustacean trawlers (24) with landing records in 2005 have in average 24.6

m, 173.0 GRT and 418.2 kW. The mean year of construction is 1994 (11 years old), ranging

from 1969 to 2002. Crustacean trawl landings in 2005 were mostly composed by blue

whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) and Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus), while the

landings from the fish trawl were dominated by horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) and

blue whiting. Hake (Merluccius merluccius) was relatively more important in the crustacean

trawl landings than in the fish trawl (Figures 2.2.1-c and 2.2.1-d).

24


Portuguese purse seine fleet

Purse-seining is a fishing activity that uses a large net to surround and trap entire shoals of

pelagic fish, which can be attracted, when fishing at night, by using one or more light

sources. In Portugal the purse-seine fishery can be directed to sardine (Sardina pilchardus),

chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus), bogue (Boops boops), anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus)

and horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus). It is allowed a by-catch of other species up to a

maximum of 20% in weight per trip. The main characteristics of purse seine fleet recording

landings in 2005 are shown in Figure 2.2.1-e. The values indicated are engine power (kW),

and Gross tonnage (GRT) and length-over-all (m), specified by region/zone of registration

and refer to the minimum, maximum and median values, together with upper and lower

quartiles. Figure 2.2.1-f indicates the number of units by zone and construction decade.

In 2005 a total of 144 vessels using purse seine were in operation, with an average length–

over-all of 19.6 m, 46.5 GRT and 233.6 kW. The year of construction ranges from 1911 to

2004, with an average of 1981 (24 years old). The fleet registered in the north comprises

36% of the total number of units, averaging 59.5 GRT, 21.9 m and 292.0 kW. The southwest

comprised 44 units (31%) with mean values of 18.7 m, 43.3 GRT and 218.6 kW. In the

south, there were 48 units registered (33%) with an average of 17.8 m, 35.5 GRT and 184.1

kW. The mean year of construction was more recent in the north (1986), and older in the

south (1976). In the southwest the mean year of construction was 1980, ranging from 1932

to 2003.

Purse seine landings in 2005 were mostly composed by sardine and chub mackerel (Figure

2.2.1-g).

2.2.2. Portuguese fleet using fixed gears

The Portuguese fleet using fixed gears is designated by polyvalent fleet. It operates along

the total Portuguese coast (ICES Division IXa) and catches a great diversity of benthonic,

demersal and pelagic species (fish, shellfish, cephalopods and crustacean). The polyvalent

fleet includes two segments, both using fixed gears: (i) boats smaller than 12 m (4K1)1, also

1 Com. Reg (EC) 2091/98, 30.09.98, OJ L 266.

25


called small scale or artisanal, and (ii) boats larger or equal than 12 m (4K2), here

designated as multi-gear. The landings in weight in 2005 from the multi-gear represented

around 40% of the total landings from both segments. The analysis of the IBERMIX project is

directed to data concerning to multi-gear segment.

In general, vessels of the Portuguese multi-gear fleet operate with a range of different gears,

including gill and trammel nets, hooks, longlines, traps and pots. Vessels may change fishing

gears seasonally which may be related, in some areas, to seasonal changes in abundance of

certain species or groups of species. Many vessels use simultaneously two or more gears in

the same area or in different areas, making more complex the analysis of fishing trip types

and the definition of fleet segments.

The main characteristics of multi-gear fleet recording landings in 2005 are shown in Figure

2.2.2-a. The values indicated for engine power (kW), Gross tonnage (GRT) and length-over-

all (m) are specified by region/zone of registration and refer to the minimum, maximum and

median values, together with upper and lower quartiles.

In 2005, a total of 331 vessels from multi-gear were in operation, with an average length of

16.0 m, 32.7 GRT and 157.0 kW. The year of construction (Figure 2.2.2-b) ranges from 1924

to 2004, with an average of 1986 (19 years old). The fleet registered in the north comprises

43% of the total number of units, having in average 34.0 GRT, 16.7 m and 168.5 kW. The

southwest comprised 121 units (37%) with mean values of 16.0 m, 35.0 GRT and 163.2 kW.

In the south, there were 65 units registered (20%) with an average of 14.8 m, 25.4 GRT and

119.6 kW. The mean year of construction was more recent in the north (1990), and more

aged in the south (1979). In the southwest the mean year of construction was 1985, ranging

from 1942 to 2004.

The multi-gear landings in 2005 were mostly composed by black scabbardfish (Aphanopus

carbo, BSF), common octopus (Octopus vulgaris, OCC), pouting (Trisopterus luscus, BIB)

and hake (Merluccius merluccius, HKE). The relative importance of each species in landed

weight is represented in Figure 2.2.2-c.

26


Table 2.1.1-a. Technical features of the Northern Spanish coastal fleets (census 2006).

MeanBottom trawl

Purse seine

Drifting longline

Set longline

Gillnet “rasco”

Gillnet “volanta”

Minorgears

Number 135 346 -- 134 44 57 6654

Shipbuilding year 1991 1991 1994 1984 1982 1991 1975

Size (m) 28 22 28 14 11 17 6

Power (HP) 444 327 446 144 87 165 28

Tonnage (t) 141 65 126 24 12 28 3

Table 2.1.1.1-a. Technical features of the trawl gears used by the Northern Spanish coastal

OTB fleet (Pérez et al., 2006).

Gears Lentgh(m)

Horizontalopening

(m)

Vertical opening

(m)

Nº of sides

Jurelera 60.4 30 6.7 4

4 sides 53.8 30 2.5 4

Raspita 57.9 30 2.0 2

Table 2.1.1.1-b. Catch composition of the Northern Atlantic coastal OTB fleet by type of

gear (Pérez et al., 2006).

species Jurelera 4 sides Raspita

Galeus melastomus 0.0 11.4 8.8

Lepidorhombus boscii 0.0 4.0 0.0

Lophius piscatorius 0.1 9.8 7.9

Merluccius merluccius 0.3 16.8 46.7

Micromesistius poutassou 6.3 12.5 4.7

Phycis blennoides 0.0 3.2 5.2

Scomber scombrus 22.9 0.0 0.0

Scymnodom ringens 0.0 4.0 3.2

Trachurus trachurus 56.1 0.9 0.1

OTHERS 14.3 37.3 23.4

27


Table 2.1.1.1-c. Landing species composition of both the trawl fleet categories in the

Northern Spanish coast (logbooks 2003-2005). OTB: Northern Spanish coastal bottom otter

trawl fleet; and PTB: Northern Spanish coastal bottom pair trawl fleet.

TRAWL OTB PTB

spp 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005

Lepidorhombus spp. 2.0 1.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

Lophius spp. 3.3 2.5 2.8 0.4 0.4 0.4

Merluccius merluccius 3.2 1.6 1.8 3.8 4.8 9.3

Micromesistius poutassou 8.6 7.3 8.0 68.9 74.0 64.7

Nephrops norvegicus 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Scombrus spp 27.9 28.4 40.2 17.0 14.2 18.5

Trachurus spp. 44.7 50.0 38.7 4.8 4.7 5.7

others 9.8 8.3 6.8 5.2 1.9 1.4

TOTAL LANDINGS (t) 27959 37032 38692 24412 29612 32163

EFFORT (days) 13172 16380 15015 8409 10223 9198

Table 2.1.1.1-d. Landing species composition of the purse seine fleet in the Northern

Spanish coastal (logbooks 2003-2005).

PURSE SEINE

spp 2003 2004 2005

Belone belone 0.6 0.7 0.1

Boops boops 0.4 0.6 0.3

Engraulis encrasicolus 2.7 8.8 0.1

Sardina pilchardus 42.9 46.0 29.9

Scomber japonicus 10.0 1.9 4.7

Scomber scombrus 5.2 9.7 8.2

Scomberesox saurus 1.4 0.5 1.7

Sparidae 0.5 0.8 5.5

Trachurus spp 32.8 28.8 43.6

Tuna 1.0 0.9 4.6

Others 2.4 1.5 1.4

TOTAL LANDINGS (t) 40361 48388 88852

TOTAL EFFORT (days) 14866 21030 18568

28


Table 2.1.1.2-a. Landing species composition of the fixed gear fleets in the Northern

Spanish coast (logbooks 2003-2005). LLS: set longline; GS: gillnet; and GTR: trammel net.

LLS GNS GTR

spp 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005

Belone belone 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Beryx spp 1.7 1.7 1.9 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Brama brama 1.4 0.8 54.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Conger conger 34.5 36.3 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Crustaceans 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.3 0.3 7.0 4.8 7.7

Dicentrarchus labrax 1.6 2.2 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.6

Dicologlossa cuneata 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.7 0.6

Elasmobranchii 16.7 9.9 3.3 3.4 2.7 1.9 12.1 12.1 11.7

Loliginidae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Lophius spp 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.3 21.8 25.4 13.3 19.0 17.1

Merluccius merluccius 7.3 8.5 5.2 32.8 27.0 29.2 2.3 3.1 3.0

Micromesistius poutassou 1.6 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mullus spp 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.3 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.5

Octopodidae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.1 2.4 2.1 1.3

Phycis spp 8.8 8.5 3.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pleuronectiformes 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.9 0.6 5.4 5.4 7.6

Pollachius spp 4.7 7.5 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Polyprion americanus 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Scomber spp 2.4 5.6 4.4 5.1 5.8 10.4 9.4 4.2 4.1

Sepia officinalis 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.2 0.6 4.0 4.6 4.6

Sparidae 4.1 3.5 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.0 2.2 1.4 1.7

Trachurus spp 0.5 0.4 0.2 5.0 6.3 4.9 0.8 1.2 1.1

Trisopterus spp 0.7 0.6 0.2 6.2 5.2 3.8 4.0 3.6 2.8

Others 13.4 12.1 4.3 22.4 22.9 18.7 33.7 35.5 33.6

TOTAL (t) 1115 1481 3382 2024 2903 4183 430 879 909

Effort (days) 4868 7517 7377 17468 22983 26986 6348 12277 12413

29


Table 2.1.2-a. Technical features of the Southern Spanish coastal fleets (census 2006).

MeanBottomtrawl

Purse seine

Driftinglongline

Minorgears

Number 203 104 2 503

Shipbuilding year 1994 1988 1998 1983

Size (m) 18 16 23 10

Power (HP) 222 195 370 55

Tonnage (t) 32 24 69 6

Table 2.1.2.1-a. Landing species composition of the mobile gear fleets in the Gulf of Cádiz

(logbooks 2003-2005).

TRAWL PURSE SEINE

Spp. 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005

Citharus linguatula 0.9 1.6 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dicologoglosa cuneata 0.8 1.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Engraulis encrasicolus 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.0 33.3 34.3

Galeorhinus galeus 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Lithognatus mormyrus 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4

Loligo spp. 2.5 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

Lophius spp. 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Melicertus kerathurus 1.4 1.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0



Mullus spp. 0.5 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0


Octopus vulgaris 5.5 5.8 24.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ommastrephidae 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other 22.8 20.8 25.1 0.9 1.0 0.7

Pagellus bogaraveo 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pagellus spp. 0.5 0.8 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Parapenaeus longirostris 13.9 4.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

Raja spp. 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sardina pilchardus 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.2 58.9 60.5

Scomber spp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 6.5 3.7

Sepia officinalis 5.6 5.4 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Solea spp. 1.6 0.9 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Squilla mantis 0.9 1.6 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

Torpedo spp. 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Trachurus spp. 2.7 1.9 2.3 0.9 0.3 0.4

TOTAL LANDINGS (t) 10783 6824 5338 14685 16152 12665

EFFORT (days) 18434 18297 26963 8287 9670 8338

30


Table 2.1.2.2-a. Landing species composition of the fixed gear fleets in the Gulf of Cádiz

(logbooks 2003-2005). LLS: set longline; GNS: gillnet; GTR: trammel net; and FPO: traps.

LLS GNS GTR FPO

spp. 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005

Argyrosomus regius 0.0 0.0 2.1 12.6 14.9 9.7 1.6 2.6 0.8

Batoideo 0.0 0.7 0.0

Beryx decadaptylus 0.0 0.0 1.1

Brama brama 0.7 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.7 7.6 0.0

Conger conger 9.3 9.3 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2

Dentex gibbosus 13.7 25.5 15.2 2.6 4.7 1.5 0.7 0.2 0.6 3.2 0.0 0.1

Dicentrarchus labrax 1.2 1.8 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1


Diplodus spp. 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.9 3.3 1.5 3.6 4.6 1.8 5.3 0.2 0.2

Galeorhinus galeus 1.9 3.0 0.6 2.5 2.2 1.8 0.0 0.1 0.1

H.dactylopterus 0.0 1.2 0.5

Isurus oxirhinchus 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.9 0.4 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0

Lepidopus caudatus 2.1 13.5 29.7


Loligo vulgaris 0.0 0.6 0.0

Lophius spp 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.2



Mullus surmuletus 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.0 2.0

Muraena helena 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.2

Octopus vulgaris 0.0 1.8 0.4 3.8 1.6 14.9 2.3 2.9 2.3 31.5 91.5 96.6

OTHERS 9.7 11.7 5.5 15.2 27.0 29.6 14.4 18.8 9.8 8.7 0.2 0.8

Plectorhinchus mediterraneus 0.0 0.9 0.3 7.5 6.4 4.4 1.1 1.5 2.0

Pagellus bogaraveo 39.6 9.4 28.6 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.6 1.5 0.2 2.7 0.0 0.8

Pagellus spp. 2.6 3.3 0.0 10.0 10.8 6.1 8.9 8.1 4.2 1.1 0.0 0.0

Palinurus spp. 0.1 1.5 0.0

Phycis spp. 5.3 8.9 8.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0

Polyprion americanus 3.2 1.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0

Pomatomus saltator 3.8 1.0 5.0 1.7 0.0 0.1

Raja spp. 0.9 1.3 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.5 5.0 6.7 3.1

S. cantharus 0.0 0.1 0.0 31.8 0.4 0.8

Scomber spp. 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Scorpaena spp 4.0 2.4 0.1

Sepia officinalis 4.8 4.8 7.2 4.6 6.3 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.1

Solea spp. 5.2 6.4 3.2 6.8 4.5 2.3

Sparus aurata 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.2

Squalidae 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1

Squilla mantis 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1

Thunnus thynnus 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

Torpedo spp. 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.8 1.5 0.7

Trachurus spp. 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.0

Umbrina spp. 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.3 2.0 1.6 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Xiphias gladius 0.7 1.5 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0

TOTAL (t) 44 221 83 171 146 209 68 78 44 38 42 231

Effort (days) 385 946 516 2382 2380 2589 261 483 286 181 363 1072

31


Figure 2.1.1-a. Evolution of the Northern Spanish coastal fleet in number of vessels from

the period 1989-1993 (STECF, 1994) to 2006.

Evolution of Northern Spanish fleets in number of vessels

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

TRAWL PURSE SEINE SET LONGLINE SET GILLNET

1989-1993

2006

Figure 2.1.1-b. Total landings of the Northern Spanish coastal fleets in the period 2003-

2005 (BT: bottom trawl; PS: purse seine; LLS: set long line; GNS: gillnet; GTR: trammel

net).

Total landings by fleet (2003-2005)

BT

49%

PS

46%

GTR

1%LLS

2%

GNS

2%

32


Figure 2.1.1-c. Total trips landed in the Northern Spanish ports by Regional Community in

the period 2003-2005.

Total trips by regional community

Asturias

14% Basque

Country

10%

Cantabria

8%Galicia

68%

Figure 2.1.1-d. Total landed trips by Regional Community and fleet in the period 2003-2005

(BT: bottom trawl; PS: purse seine; LLS: set long line; GNS; gillnet; GTR: trammel net).

Asturias

BT

29%

PS

9%LLS

18%

GNS

28%

GTR

16%

Cantabria

BT

4% PS

22%

LLS

10%GNS

49%

GTR

15%

Galicia

BT

31%

PS

24%

LLS

4%

GNS

28%

GTR

13%

Basque Country

BT

10%

PS

40%LLS

20%

GNS

20%

GTR

10%

33


Figure 2.1.1.1-a. Northern Spanish trawl fleet: evolution of landings composition from the

period 1989-1993 (STECF, 1994) to the period 2003-2005.

Landings composition of the Northern Spanish coastal trawl fleet

(1989-1993)

blue whiting

47.5%

hake

6.0%

monk

4.6%megrim

3.7%OTHERS

12.9%

horse mackerel

18.9%

mackerel

4.8%

nephrops

1.7%

Landings composition of the Northern Spanish coastal trawl fleet

(2003-2005)

nephrops

0.1%

mackerel

25.4%

horse mackerel

26.5%

OTHERS

5.7%

megrim

0.9%

monk

1.7%hake

4.0%

blue whiting

35.7%

34


Figure 2.1.1.1-b. Northern Spanish coastal bottom otter trawl fleet: landings composition

from the period 2003-2005 and OTB trips landed by fishing port.

Landings composition of the Northern Spanish coastal

OTB fleet (2003-2005)

blue whiting

7.9%

hake

2.1%monk

2.8%megrim

1.7%OTHERS

8.2%

horse mackerel

44.3% mackerel

32.6%

nephrops

0.3%

Northern Spanish coastal OTB trips landed by port

Muros

9%

Gijón

10%

Avilés

6%

Marín

5% A Coruña

26%

Ribeira

12% Burela

11%

35


Figure 2.1.1.1-c. Northern Spanish coastal bottom pair trawl fleet: landings composition

from the period 2003-2005 and PTB trips landed by fishing port.

Landings composition of the Northern Spanish coastal

PTB fleet (2003-2005)

blue whiting

69.1%

hake

6.2%

OTHERS

2.6%horse mackerel

5.1%

mackerel

16.6%

Northern Spanish coastal PTB trips landed by port

Avilés

12%Camariñas

8%

Gijón

4%

Ondarroa

7%

A Coruña

21%

Celeiro

19%

Ribeira

20%

36


Figure 2.1.1.1-d. Northern Spanish coastal purse seine fleet: evolution of landings

composition from the period 1989-1993 (STECF, 1994) to the period 2003-2005.

Northern Spanish coastal Purse Seine fleet (1989-1993)

sardine

52%

mackerel

8%

horse mackerel

21%

anchovy

19%

Northern Spanish coastal Purse Seine fleet (2003-2005)

sardine

38%

mackerel

13%

horse mackerel

37%

tuna

3%

OTHERS

2%

atlantic saury

1%

Sparidae

3%

anchovy

3%

Figure 2.1.1.1-e. Total landed trips of the Northern Spanish coastal purse seine fleet by

landing port (2003-2005).

Northern Spanish coastal PS trips landed by port

Cambados

5%

Camariñas

4%

Malpica

4%

Portonovo

6%Pasajes

3%

Bueu

5%Avilés

5%Santoña

6%

Sada

7%

Ribeira

12%

Vigo

15%

Portosín

10%

Burela

4%

37


Figure 2.1.1.2-a. Northern Spanish coastal set longline fleet: evolution of landings


Northern Spanish coastal LLS (1989-1993) landings

hake

15% horse mackerel

1%

mackerel

41%blue whiting

1%

others

42%

Northern Spanish LLS 2003-2004

Atlantic promfet1%

conger36%

seabass2%

sharks7%

hake9%blue whiting

6%forkbeard

5%

pollack7%

OTHERS13%

garfish1%

alfonsino2%

pouting1%

Wreckfish4%

mackerel1%

sparidae5%

horse mackerel2%

Figure 2.1.1.2-b. Total landed trips of the Northern Spanish coastal set longline fleet by


Northern Spanish coastal LLS trips landed by port

Avilés

8%

Ferrol

4%

Fisterra

8%

Gijón

3%

Lastres

5%

Muxía

7%

Burela

7%

Cariño

3%Carreira

5%

Cudillero

6%Cedeira

3%

San Vicente

5%

A Coruña

5%

Cambados

3%

38


Figure 2.1.1.2-c. Northern Spanish coastal set gillnet fleet: evolution of landings


Northern Spanish coastal GNS landings(1989-1993)

black monkfish

2%white

monkfish11%

mackerel5%

horse mackerel

2%

hake20%

others60%

Northern Spanish coastal GNS landings (2003-2005)

mackerel8%

sparidae1%

horse mackerel5%

pouting5%

OTHERS21%

crustaceans1%

sharks2%

cuttlefish1%

red mullet2%

hake29%

monkfish22%

Figure 2.1.1.2-d. Total landed trips of the Northern Spanish coastal set gillnet fleet by


Northern Spanish coastal GNS trips landed by port

Fisterra

8%

Gijón

2%

Lastres

3%

Santoña

3%

Celeiro

4%

Castro Urdiales

6%

Cambados

5%Cariño

3%

O Grove

6%

Ribeira

3%

Laxe

7%A Coruña

4%

Llanes

2%

Lequeitio

3%

Burela

4%

Cedeira

11%

39


Figure 2.1.1.2-e. Northern Spanish coastal trammel net fleet: landings composition from

the period 2003-2005 and trips landed by port.

Northern Spanish coastal GTR landings (2003-2005)

mackerel5%

cuttlefish4%

sparidae2%

horse mackerel1%

pouting3%

pleuronectiform

6%

red mullet1%octopus

2%

hake3%

monkfish17%

OTHERS34%

crustaceans6% seabass

1%wedge sole

1%sharks12%

Northern Spanish coastal GTR trips landed by port

Gijón

2%

Portosín

6%

A Garda

6%

Laxe

8%

Burela

4%Porto do Son

13%

Bermeo

3%

Avilés

4%

Ferrol

6%Fisterra

5%

O Grove

3%

Castro Urdiales

4%

40


Figure 2.2-a. Relative importance of the landings in 2005 by Portuguese fleet component.

2005 - Landings (weight)

Trawl17%

Purse seine42%

Polyvalent41%

2005 - Landings (value)

Trawl17%

Polyvalent67%

Purse seine16%

Figure 2.2-b. Relative importance of the landings in 1996 by Portuguese fleet component.

1996 - Landings (weight)Trawl13%

Purse seine58%

Polyvalent29%

1996 - Landings (value)

Trawl18%

Purse seine

23%

Polyvalent

59%

Figure 2.2-c. Importance of the 2005 landings in weight in the main Portuguese fishing

harbours.

2005 - Landings (weight)

Others23%

Sines9%

Peniche16%

Figueira

7%

Sesimbra10%Olhão

11%

Matosinhos17%

Portimão7%

41


Figure 2.2-d. Relative importance of the 2005 landings in weight in the main Portuguese

fishing harbours by fleet component.

2005 - Trawl Fleet

Others, 36%

Figueira Foz, 12%

Peniche, 10%

Matosinhos, 16%

Aveiro, 14%

Portimão, 12%

2005 - Purse seine Fleet

Others, 29%

Sines, 12%

Figueira Foz, 10% Matosinhos,

24%

Peniche, 26%

2005 - Polyvalent Fleet

Others, 32%

Aveiro, 8%Peniche, 8% Matosinhos, 11%

Lagos, 7% Sesimbra, 16%

Olhão, 19%

42


Figure 2.2.1-a. Characteristics of the Portuguese Trawl fleet operating in 2005.

Regions

En

gin

e P

ow

er

(kW

)

200

400

600

800

1000

N SW S

Fish

N SW S

Crustacean

Regions

Le

ngth

Ove

rall (

m)

15

20

25

30

35

N SW S

Fish

N SW S

Crustacean

Regions

Gro

ss T

on

na

ge

50

100

150

200

250

N SW S

Fish

N SW S

Crustacean

Figure 2.2.1-b. Portuguese Trawl fleet: number of trawlers by year of construction

operating in 2005

Construction Year

Nu

mb

er

of ve

sse

ls

0

5

10

15

1940 1960 1980 2000

N

Crustacean

SW

Crustacean

1940 1960 1980 2000

S

Crustacean

N

Fish

1940 1960 1980 2000

SW

Fish

0

5

10

15

S

Fish

43


Figure 2.2.1-c. Relative importance of species landed in weight by the Portuguese

Crustacean trawl fleet.

2005 - Crustacean Trawl

DPS, 9%

NEP, 24%

WHB, 36%

LEF, 3%SCL, 3%

Others, 11%

HKE, 9%

HOM, 2%

ANF, 2%

Figure 2.2.1-d. Relative importance of species landed in weight by the Portuguese Fish

trawl fleet.

2005 - Fish trawl

HOM, 41%

WHB, 17%Others, 16%

MAS, 9%

MAC, 6%

HKE, 4%BIB, 4% JAA, 3%

44


Figure 2.2.1-e. Characteristics of the Portuguese Purse seine fleet operating in 2005

Figure 2.2.1-f. Number of Portuguese purse seiners by zone and year of construction

operating in 2005.

45


Figure 2.2.1-g. Relative importance of species landed in weight by the Portuguese purse

seine fleet.

2005 - Purse Seine

MAS13%

HOM4%

PIL81%

Others2%

Figure 2.2.2-a. Characteristics of the Portuguese Multi-gear fleet (4K2) operating in 2005.

46


Figure 2.2.2-b. Number of vessels by zone and year of the construction of the Portuguese

Multi-gear fleet (4K2) operating in 2005.

Figure 2.2.2-c. Relative importance of species landed in weight by Multi-gear fleet in 2005.

2005 - Multi-gear

SKA4%

COE4%

ANF3%

CYO3%

PIL5%

HKE6%

BIB7%

OCC13%

BSF17%Others

38%

47


Map 2-a. ICES Areas map showing the IBERMIX area of study: ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa.

48


Map 2.1.1-a. Map of the Northern Spanish coast with the most important fishing ports.

Map 2.1.2-a. Map of the Southern Spanish Atlantic coast (Gulf of Cádiz) with the most

important fishing ports.

-7.4 -7.2 -7 -6.8 -6.6 -6.4 -6.2 -6 -5.8 -5.6

35.8

36

36.2

36.4

36.6

36.8

37

37.2

37.4

Tarifa

Barbate

Conil

Cádiz

P. Santa MaríaRota

Chipiona

Sanlúcar

Mazagón

Huelva

P. Umbría

P.N. Doñana

Gua

dian

aR

iver

Isla Cristina

Ayamonte

PO

RT

UG

AL

SPAIN

MOROCCO

10 m

30 m

100 m

200 m

500 m

FishingReserve

49


Map 2.2-a. Main fishing harbours in Portuguese continental coast.

Latitu

de (

º N

)

Longitude (º W)10.5 10.0 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0

36.5

37.0

37.5

38.0

38.5

39.0

39.5

40.0

40.5

41.0

41.5

42.0

Viana do Castelo

Póvoa de Varzim

Matosinhos

Aveiro

Figueira da Foz

Nazaré

Peniche

Cascais

SetúbalSesimbra

Sines

V.R.Sto AntónioPortimão TaviraLagos

Olhão

FISHING HARBOURS

--------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------

North (N)

SouthWest (SW)

South (S)

--------------------------------------------------

50


Map 2.2-b. Contribution of the landings weight of each fleet component by zone.

La

titu

de (

º N

)

Longitude (º W)10.5 10.0 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0

36.5

37.0

37.5

38.0

38.5

39.0

39.5

40.0

40.5

41.0

41.5

42.0

Viana do Castelo

Póvoa de Varzim

Matosinhos

Aveiro

Figueira da Foz

Nazaré

Peniche

Cascais

SetúbalSesimbra

Sines

V.R.Sto AntónioPortimão TaviraLagos

Olhão

FISHING HARBOURS--------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------

North (N)

SouthWest (SW)

South (S)

--------------------------------------------------

2005 Tra w l

17%

P urs e s e i ne4 2 %

P o ly -v a le nt

4 1%

NO RTHP o ly -v ale nt

3 4 %

P urs e s e ine4 3 %

Tra w l2 3 %

SO UTHWESTP o ly -v a le nt

3 8 %

P urs e s e ine5 0 %

Traw l12 %

SOUTH

P o ly -v a le nt

58 %

P urs e s e ine2 7%

T raw l15%

51


3. Identification of métiers

Those requests, exposed in Section 1, that the European Commission sent to ICES to ask

advice in a fisheries context rather than on an individual stock basis (EC, 2001; EC, 2002),

were materialize by initiating the ICES “Study Group for the Development of Fishery-based

Forecasts” (SGDFF) in 2003. This study group meant the base for the first guidelines of the

operational definition of fisheries based on individual voyage data.

First of all, the SG focused on clarifying some basic vocabulary, distinguishing between the

following three concepts:

“Fleet” (physical group of vessels sharing similar technical features).

“Fishery” (group of vessel voyages targeting the same species, using similar gear,

during the same period and within the same area).

“Métier” (homogeneous subdivision of a fishery by vessel type, as combination of

gear, target species and fishing area).

Secondly, a compilation related to fishery definition was made, finding two main approaches

which prevailed in the literature and in the experience available in the fisheries institutes

participating:

“The first one is a quantitative analysis of log-book data, mainly on the

composition of catches and/or landings, with or without the inclusion of

information on gear, season and location. Several methods have been used,

which are all based on multivariate procedures: Principal Component Analysis,

PCA (Biseau and Gondeaux, 1988; Laurec et al., 1991; Jabeur et al., 2000),

Multiple Correspondence Analysis, MCA (Pelletier and Ferraris, 2000), and

cluster analysis (Lewy and Vinther, 1994). The techniques chosen were based on

the experience of the scientists involved”.

“The other approach is more ad hoc, and is based on qualitative a priori

knowledge of the fisheries. A trial and error process is conducted in order to

derive discriminating levels (based either on landings weight, landings value or

mesh size), which allow the allocation of each fishing trip to a métier. These

studies are often not published, except Biseau (1998), but might be extensively

used within the institutes e.g. for designing sampling programs”.

Finally, the SG proposed a 3-step open framework which combines the statistical analysis of

landings and effort data (in a similar way to the published works quoted above), and the ad

hoc classification based on the qualitative knowledge of experts (ICES/SGDFF, 2003):

53


The first step is a multivariate analysis of the catch or landings data by trip,

in terms of species composition by weight, by value or a combination of the

two. This defines the catch profile (sometimes referred to as the (group of)

dominant or target species) of each individual trip. The aim of this step is to

characterize the outcome of the trip (in terms of landings or revenues) by a

single categorical variable, which is simpler to use than the complete

distribution by species. Any multivariate method can be used for this purpose,

and the choice of the method is left open to the scientists conducting the

work. However, catch profiles alone cannot always be used to characterize a

métier and a second step is necessary.

The second step of the analysis is thus to investigate the relationships

between the features of the voyages in terms of gear type, mesh size,

fishing area, time period, vessel characteristics, etc., and their outcome in

terms of catch or landings profile. The aims of this step are twofold: i) to

investigate the similarity between the temporal and spatial distribution of the

various types of catch profiles on the one hand, and the various types of

fishing activities on the other, and ii) to investigate whether a métier should

be defined from its catch profile only, from its activity variables only, or from

both.

The third step is then to define métiers that are considered sensible both from

the results of the previous step, and in relation to the ad hoc knowledge of

the fisheries. This includes the construction of a hierarchical classification of

voyages, and the choice of levels of aggregation. This is made through the use

of both specific statistical (e.g. inter- and intra-group variance) and

“subjective” criteria derived from the expertise of the scientists and

information obtained from fishermen. The knowledge of the fishery is a key

element in the proper definition of métiers. Therefore, this can only be done at

the national level, within the fisheries institutes. A universal method, generally

applicable to all situations, does not exist. However, it is advisable that some

degree of international consultation be set up, to avoid proliferation of the

number of métiers and lack of consistency between countries.

Furthermore, the SGDFF members gave a number of suggestions in order to specify the best

ways to manage this issue. On the one hand, the SG considered that the identification of

catch profiles should preferably be conducted on the values of catches and/or landings,

rather than on their weight, due to this should more accurately reflect the real intention of

fishermen, particularly with regards to high-priced species which are caught in quantities

that are smaller than their so-called “by-catches”. On the other one, the identification of

métiers and fisheries should be based on the last three years of data with regards to get a

picture of the current situation, which must be maintained over the time for being facilitate

to properly track the evolution of the fishing activities. However, updates of the definitions

54


can be made after longer time-intervals (e.g. every five years), to make sure that the

definitions continue matching fishing practices. Finally, the SG also recommended that

métiers and fisheries be presented in the form of an ordination tree with proposed levels of

aggregation.

This framework has already been applied to the métier identification in previous scientific

projects related to this issue (TECTAC, 2006).

55


3.1. Materials and Methods

The analysis carried out in the IBERMIX project concerns the application of objective

methods to the segmentation of the Atlantic Iberian Peninsula fleets, according to the formal

procedure suggested by 2003 ICES SGDFF.

3.1.1. Databases

Spanish data

The data source for the fleet segmentation were the 2003-2005 logbooks of the Spanish

fleets operating in the Atlantic Iberian Peninsula waters, which were made available to the

AZTI and the IEO by the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (SGPM),

responsible of its collection, as well as the Basque Fishermen Association and “Cofradías de

Pescadores”. However, filling logbooks in is only mandatory for vessels larger than 10 m, so

that the small scale fleet could not be taken into account in the present analysis. Logbooks

permit to compile the landing profiles (in weight) by fishing day and vessel, giving

information about effort, date of landing, type of gear, landing port, and fishing area.

Besides, a list of the fleet technical features was also facilitated by the SGPM. The analyses

by landing port, which results are very useful for applying to the National Sampling

Programme, were excluded from this report in order to resume and clarify the international

implications of the fleet segmentation. As a result, only the landings by species, the date of

landing and the ICES rectangle are used here for identifying métiers, and analyzing their

temporal and spatial behaviour.

Even though economical information is believed to give a better perception of the fishing

behaviour (ICES/SGDFF, 2003), no economical data were available, in general, for matching

with landings from logbooks. However, an exercise was carried out using economical data

from a part of the Basque vessels, netters, and comparing this analysis with the traditional

one in which landings by trips are analysed by means of multivariate techniques. Results

from this exploratory analysis are not included in this report as less than 5% of the total

activity of the netters were analysed.

The original matrices were reduced from more than 200 species to the number of the most

important species or groups of species representing a certain threshold of the total landings,

0.5% in the Northern Spanish waters and 0.2% in the Gulf of Cadiz due to its higher

biodiversity. As a result, between 7 and 19 species or groups of species in the Northern area,

and between 6 and 22 in the case of the Gulf of Cádiz were used in the analyses. The

number of the total trips was 234,131 for the Northern Spanish coastal fleets and 97,160 for

the Gulf of Cádiz fleets.

56


Portuguese data

The analyses were based on daily commercial landings for the years 2003-2005. The data,

provided by the Portuguese Fisheries Administration (DGPA), comprised the species

composition of landings, in weight and in value, per vessel and per day in the Portuguese

continental auction markets. These data were transferred to an IPIMAR database designated

“Pescart”.

Given that fishing is highly driven by the market value of the product, it was assumed that

the revenue obtained with the catch would be best descriptor of the activity of the fishing

fleets. This approach was recommended by the “Study Group on the Development of

Fishery-based Forecasts” (ICES/SGDFF, 2003). Based on this assumption, the analyses were

performed on landings value per species instead of landings weight. It was also assumed

that the landings made on a specific date were the production of one fishing trip.

In the case of the multi-gear fleet component the information of the used fishing gear in

individual daily landings was not available. Instead, administrative information on vessel’s

fishing licenses was obtained.

The original data matrix, consisting of daily landings in value per vessel was reduced, for the

trawl fleet, from 200 species to the 23 most important species or groups of species, each of

them representing more than 0.5% of the total value. For the purse-seine fleet, the data set

was reduced from 117 species to the 5 target species (sardine (Sardina pilchardus), Spanish

mackerel (Scomber japonicus), horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus), anchovy (Engraulis

encrasicholus) and bogue (Boops boops)) plus the remaining that accounted for more than

0.5% of the total value. For the multi-gear fleet, the total number of landed species by year

was around 200 and was reduced to around 60. All the remaining species were added in the

group “Others”.

A total number of 37,146 trawl trips, 49,421 purse-seine trips and 117,754 multi-gear trips

were analysed for the period 2003-2005.

57


3.1.2. Multivariate analysis methods

The election of the appropriate multivariate method must take into account the type and the

structure of the relation among variables. When variables can not be divide between

dependent or independent, it must be used an interdependence analysis. In the case that the

relationship is between “cases” (not variables), a Cluster Analysis is needed (Hair et al.,

1999).

The matrices were analyzed separately by year, using a non-hierarchical cluster analysis to

classify catch profiles. The Cluster Analysis is the searching for groups (clusters) in the data,

in such a way that objects belonging to the same cluster resemble each other, whereas

objects in different clusters are dissimilar. Generally speaking, clustering algorithms fall into

two categories: Partitioning Algorithms and Hierarchical Algorithms. A partitioning algorithm

describes a method that divides the data set into k clusters, where the integer k needs to be

specified by the user. A hierarchical algorithm describes a method yielding an entire

hierarchy of clustering for the given data set, which can be oriented in an agglomerative or a

divisive way.

At the present, one of the most feasible partitioning algorithm is the “PAM” method

(Partitioning Around Medoids) (Kaufman and Rousseeuw, 1990). The function PAM has the

following features: (a) it accepts a dissimilarity matrix; (b) it is more robust than other

techniques because it minimizes a sum of dissimilarities instead of a sum of squared

Euclidean distances; (c) it provides a novel graphical display, the “silhouette plot”. It also

allows the user to select the number of clusters. However, dealing with much larger data sets

as logbooks needs computer requirements that exceed the PAM algorithm operating. The

method “CLARA” (Clustering Large Applications) is fully able to solve this problem by

considering data subsets of fixed size, so that the overall time and storage requirements

become linear in the total number of objects, rather than quadratic. The function PAM needs

to store the dissimilarity matrix of the entire data set (which has O(n2) entries) in central

memory, while its computation time goes up accordingly. For larger data sets (say, with

more than 250 objects) this becomes less convenient. To avoid this problem, the function

CLARA does not compute the entire dissimilarity matrix at once. Therefore, this function only

accepts input of an n*p data matrix.

It is recommended to run PAM (or CLARA) several times, each time with a different k, and to

compare the resulting silhouette plots. The user can then select the value of k yielding the

highest “overall average silhouette width”, defined as the average of the silhouette

coefficients over all objects I in the dataset. This quality index has been referred in the

present report as silhouette coefficient (SC). Experienced has led to the subjective

interpretation of the silhouette coefficient as listed as follows (Struyf et al., 1996):

58


SC Proposed interpretation

0.71-1.00 A strong structure has been found.

0.51-0.70 A reasonable structure has been found.

0.26-0.50 The structure is weak and could be artificial.

<0.25 No substantial structure has been found.

For the Spanish fleets, the catch profile clusters were obtained using the CLARA algorithm,

while for the technical features of the fleets a PAM algorithm was carried out. Both the

analyses were made by taking Euclidean distances for the dissimilarity matrix.

For the Portuguese trawl fleet, the final clusters were obtained using the PAM algorithm,

while for the purse-seine fleet the CLARA algorithm was used due to the size of the data set.

Both the analyses were made by taking Euclidean distances for the dissimilarity matrix. For

the Portuguese multi-gear fleet, due to the complexity of this fleet and particularly to the use

of different types of gears with no information available, two methodological approaches

were undertaken. First a non-hierarchical cluster method, the PAM method, was applied by

year to the total matrix of daily landings using its variant CLARA. The second approach used

the fishing license information as independent variables to fit a multivariate regression

tree (Breiman et al., 1984; De'ath, 2002) by year with the species/groups of species in

value as dependent variables. With this method a link between gear and species/groups of

species could be established. For the application of regression trees the total annual

proportion in value was used by vessel. As dependent variables groups of species were used.

Species were grouped according to their taxonomy and habitat preferences (Table 3.1.2.1-

a).

The different multivariate analysis were made by S-plus© and R1 softwares.

1 R Development Core Team (2007). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R

Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-

project.org.

59


3.2. Results

Results are shown in different sections by country (Spain and Portugal) and gear category

(mobile and fixed gears) as it was structured in the previous Section 2.

3.2.1. Segmentation of the Spanish fleets

As in the previous Section 2, the Spanish Atlantic coastal fleets were also divided taking into

account both the areas, the Northern Spanish Atlantic waters (ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa

North: Spanish waters of the Bay of Biscay and Galician waters) and the Southern Spanish

Atlantic waters (ICES Divisions IXa South: Gulf of Cádiz).

3.2.1.1. Segmentation of the Northern Spanish coastal fleets using

mobile gears

The Northern Spanish fleets using mobile gears are compounded by trawl, purse seine,

drifting long line, and dredges. As it was described in Section 2, the drifting long line fleet is

a monospecific fishery involving a small number of vessels targeting pelagic sharks; while

the fleet using dredges involve vessels smaller than 10 m which target specifically bivalve

molluscs. Therefore, both fleets are very partially represented in logbooks. Taking into

account the logbook’s coverage level (Table 3.2.1.1-a) and the mixed nature of the fleets,

the analyses were just focused on the trawl and the purse seine fleets.

Northern Spanish coastal bottom otter trawl fleet (OTB)

The number of trips of the Northern Spanish coastal OTB fleet was 38,109 in the period

2003-2005, showing stability among years. The huge number of species was reduced to 11

species or categories, those representing more than 0.5% in landings, and their respective

landed weights were transformed into percentages by trip.

The CLARA analysis of the OTB trips give some differences between years, so that 2003 and

2005 show the highest SC for three clusters (above 0.5), while 2004 gives it highest one

with four clusters (below 0.5) (Figures 3.2.1.1-a). Analysing the catch profile of the clusters

obtained (Figures 3.2.1.1-b), three common clusters can be followed through the time

series:

OTB-HOM: trips targeting horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus).

OTB-MAC: trips targeting mackerel (Scomber scombrus).

60


OTB-mixed: trips targeting a mixed of demersal species as hake (Merluccius

merluccius), megrim (Lepidorhombus spp.), monk (Lophius spp.), blue whiting

(Micromesistius poutassou) and Norway lobster (Nephrops novergicus).

The forth cluster obtained in 2004 is composed by trips targeting mainly blue whiting (OTB-

WHB). In order to facilitate comparisons between years, the whole time series was split in

three and four clusters respectively (Table 3.2.1.1-b). As it can be seen, OTB-MAC and OTB-

HOM show identical catch profiles and number of trips independently of clustering by three or

four groups. However, OTB-WHB and OTB-mixed obtained by clustering four groups match

with the OTB-mixed when only three clusters are made. Therefore, it is reasonable to deduce

that OTB-MAC and OTB-HOM correspond with those OTB vessels using the “jurelera” gear,

while OTB-WHB and OTB-mixed correspond to those gears with smaller vertical opening:

“raspita” and “4 sides” gears (see Section 2 and Annex I for gear descriptions). The

knowledge of the fishery indicates the existence of OTB trips targeting blue whiting, which

have gradually decreased at the time that the pair trawl fleet, much more efficient catching

that species, has been increasing (see Section 4.3). Therefore, this trip type will also be

taken into account in the following analysis in order to be consistent with the history of the

fishery.

The monthly analysis shows a clear seasonal pattern only in the OTB-MAC trip type, being

concentrated in the first four months of the year, from January to April, and showing its

highest percentage in March (Figures 3.2.1.1-c). The remaining trip types show a constant

distribution along the year. In fact, the only effort reduction observed, in early 2003, was

due to the fishing restrictions implemented after the “B/T Prestige” oil spill in November

2002.

A geographical analysis shows that most of the total effort is concentrated in western areas.

Regarding the distribution of trip types, it is interesting to observe the decrease in the

number of OTB-WHB trips while the number of OTB-HOM trips have increased all over the

time series (Map 3.2.1.1-a).

Regarding the relation between the clusters obtained and the technical features of the fleet,

a multivariate analysis was carried out taking into account the engine power (HP), length-

over-all (m) and Gross tonnage (GRT). However, artificial groups were obtained due to

misreporting of engine power. An analysis after removing that variable gave three clusters

with SC=0.59 (Table 3.2.1.1-c and Figure 3.2.1.1-d). Nevertheless, once theses fleet

segments were crossed against the four trip types no significant results were obtained (Xt2 =

8.02 on 2 df, p=0.24).

61


Northern Spanish coastal bottom pair trawl fleet (PTB)

The number of trips of the Northern Spanish coastal PTB fleet was 25,250 in the period

2003-2005, showing stability among years. The huge number of species was reduced to 7

species or species groups, those representing more than 0.5% in landings, and their

respective landed weights were transformed into percentages by trip. The annual

multivariate analysis of PTB gives the highest SC (above 0.7) splitting the trips in two

clusters (Figures 3.2.1.1-e). Analysing the catch profile of the clusters obtained (Figure

3.2.1.1-f), they could be denominated and described as follows:

PTB-WHB: trips targeting blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou).

PTB-MAC: trips targeting mackerel (Scomber scombrus).

On one hand, the PTB-WHB cluster holds the majority of the fishery (around 90%). On the

other one, its contribution to the SC is higher than the PTB-MAC coefficients, which is always

under 0.4 except in 2003. Comparing both the catch profiles along the time period under

study, an identical catch profile appears in both the clusters for the main species except for

hake, whose percentage increase since 2004, especially in the PTB-MAC cluster (Table

3.2.1.1-d). This increase could be related to the high recruitment recorded by the Spanish

and Portuguese surveys since 2004 (ICES/WGHMM, 2006).

The monthly analysis shows a clear seasonal pattern only in the cluster PTB-MAC, being

concentrated in the first four months of the year, from January to April, and showing its

highest percentage in March. However, the PTB-MAC trips extend more uniformly over the

whole of 2005 due to the inclusion of the increasing landings of hake in this trip type (Figure

3.2.1.1-g).

The geographical analysis shows that the PTB-MAC trips are mainly concentrated in the ICES

Division VIIIc (Map 3.2.1.1-b).

Regarding the multivariate analysis of the technical features, artificial groups were again

obtained due to the misreporting in engine power as it was found in OTB. An analysis after

removing that variable gave two clusters with a SC=0.72 (Table 3.2.1.1-e and Figure

3.2.1.1-h). Nevertheless, once these fleet segments were crossed against both of the trip

types obtained in this fleet, no significant results were obtained (Xt2 = 0.63 on 1 df, p=0.43).

62


Northern Spanish coastal purse seine fleet (PS)

The number of available trips from logbooks was 54,484 and the number of species used in

the analysis was reduced to 10 and one category called ‘others’ that joins the rest of species.

The species selection was based on three criteria: higher landings, important accompanying

species and greater probability of correct identification. Taking into account the best SC

coefficients, the multivariate analysis gave the result of 8 clusters for 2003 and 2005, and 7

clusters for 2004 (Figures 3.2.1.1-i). Although a different number of clusters were obtained

per year, 6 clusters could be considered constant and identifiable through the whole period

(Tables 3.2.1.1-f and Figures 3.2.1.1-j):

5 “clean” clusters:

o PS-PIL: Trips targeting sardine (Sardina pilchardus).

o PS-JAX: Trips targeting horse mackerels (Trachurus spp.).

o PS-ANE: Trips targeting anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus).

o PS-MAC: Trips targeting mackerel (Scomber scombrus).

o PS-SBX: Trips targeting seabreams (Sparidae).

Trips targeting a high variety of species (‘others’).

Regarding a mean effort, the highest level is represented by two trip types, PS-PIL (40.4%)

and PS-JAX (32.1%), being followed by PS-ANE (7.5%) and PS-MAC (7%). In the case of

PS-ANE, its lack in 2005 is due to the collapse of the stock (ICES/WGHMSA, 2006), not to

the sporadic character as can be found in those clusters targeting chub mackerel, garfish,

Atlantic saury or tuna fish. The fisheries directed to chub mackerel and Atlantic saury are

known to occur in the area, however its development depends on market value and demand.

The chub mackerel distribution, stable in the Bay of Biscay where is caught in summer and

autumn after its spawning period, can sporadically reach the Galician coast extending the

fishery area. Regarding the tuna fish cluster, its landings have surely been recorded under a

wrong gear allocation. As a result, the later analysis was performed with the 5 clean clusters

and the rest of trip types joined in a “mixed cluster” (PS-mixed).

A seasonal analysis (Figures 3.2.1.1-k) showed that PS-ANE trips are concentrated in spring,

from April to June, except in 2005 when its absence was due to the collapse of the stock and

the corresponding closure of the fishery. The PS-MAC trip type is developed at the beginning

of the year on spawners concentrated during the spawning time, and at the end of the

summer on mackerel juveniles. Due to the fishing restrictions imposed during and after the

“B/T Prestige” oil spill occurred in the study area (November 2002), there was not PS-MAC

winter fishery in 2003, being not detected by the multivariate analysis. PS-PIL and PS-JAX

showed high values in summer and autumn and PS-SBX did not present a clear pattern.

63


The trip types geographical distribution indicates that the highest effort areas are located in

the Eastern Bay of Biscay and the Southern Galician waters, targeting mainly anchovy an

sardine respectively (Map 3.2.1.1-c),

A multivariate analysis of the technical features of the PS fleet showed two clusters (Figure

3.2.1.1-l): one group of bigger vessels (PSB; 20% of the fleet) with an average of 29 m of

total length, 116 t and 500 HP; and another group of smaller vessels (PSS; around 80%)

with an average of 16 m length, 27 t and 190 HP. The correspondence between the selected

trip types and the fleet segments obtained (Table 3.2.1.1-g) shows a significant relationship

(p=1.38e-22) between the PSB fleet segment and the PS-ANE trips, while the other trip

types (PS-JAX, PS-MAC, PS-PIL, PS-SBX and PS-mixed) are mainly carried out by the PSS

fleet segment. Therefore, the trip types obtained were split by fleet segment, PSB and PSS,

for carrying out a monthly analysis. Results show that effort is mostly exerted by the PSS

fleet, while PSB covers the majority of the PS-ANE trips (Figure 3.2.1.1-m). However, the

CPUEs of the PSB component are higher than the CPUEs of the PSS, particularly in 2005,

when the anchovy collapse made the PSB component target other species. Geographically,

the PSB fleet effort is more concentrated in the Eastern Bay of Biscay while the effort of

small vessels (PSS) is higher in the Western Galician waters (Maps 3.2.1.1-d and e).

3.2.1.2. Segmentation of the Northern Spanish coastal fleets using

fixed gears

The Northern Spanish fleets using fixed gears are compounded by long line, hand and pole

line, gillnet, trammel, and traps. The hand line fleet operating in the Northern Spanish

coastal waters is a monospecific fishery targeting horse mackerel (Punzón et al., 2004). The

Northern Spanish coastal fleet using traps is mainly compounded by vessels smaller than

10m, so that logbooks show a high misreporting regarding this fleet. The Northern Spanish

trammel net fleet, which is also part of the minor-gear fleet (see Section 2), is compounded

by vessels smaller as well as bigger than 10 m. Even though logbooks do not record the

whole landings of this fishery, they give an opportunity to follow this fishery for first time, as

this fleet had never been considered in previous sampling schemes. Taking into account the

logbooks covering level (Table 3.2.1.2-a) and the mixed nature of the fleets, the analysis

was focused on the set long line (SLL), set gillnet (GNS), and trammel net (GTR) fleets.

Northern Spanish coastal set long line fleet (SLL)

A total of 19,762 trips from logbooks of the period 2003-2005 was compiled, and the number

of species used in the analysis was reduced to 15 and one category called ‘others’ that joins

the rest of species. The multivariate analysis was carried out by year separately, obtaining

SC coefficients higher than 0.6 in all of years (Figure 3.2.1.2-a). In spite of obtaining a

different number of clusters each year, six common trip types can be followed trough the

time series (Table 3.2.1.2-b, Figure 3.2.1.2-b):

64


4 “clean” clusters:

o LLS-COE: Trips targeting conger (Conger conger).

o LLS-HKE: Trips targeting hake (Merluccius merluccius).

o LLS-POL: Trips targeting pollacks (Pollachius spp.).

o LLS-BSS: Trips targeting seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax).

2 mixed clusters:

o Trips targeting sharks, forkbeards (Phycis phycis), and mackerel.

o Trips targeting a high variety of species (‘others’).

The first mixed cluster showed above presents the lowest internal consistency of the whole

clusters, with SC around 0.1 through the time period. As a result, when the catch profile of

the non-stable clusters is analysed, those two extra groups obtained in 2003 seem to

correspond with a subdivision of the mixed trip type mentioned, isolating those trips with

high catches of sharks. To the contrary, the extra cluster obtained in 2005 is a “clean” trip

type targeting Atlantic pomfret whose landings represent more than 93% of the total

landings in the year. This is a sporadic fishery whose activity depends on the migration of the

species, reaching so high latitudes only under specific oceanographic conditions. Due to the

short period analyzed, this trip type will be joined both the mixed clusters in a common

mixed trip type (LLS-mixed) in the following analysis in order to facilitate focusing on the

annual stable trip types. The identification of LLS-HKE, despite its low landings, is very

important under an economical point of view because it is the only fishery targeting breeding

big hakes, which reach the highest value at the market.

A monthly analysis (Figure 3.2.1.2-c) shows the higher effort to be concentrated on spring

(particularly in May and June) and autumn (including the last month of the summer). LLS-

HKE and LLS-COE are concentrated in spring, while the autumn fisheries are those from LLS-

BSS and LLS-POL. Effort reduction observed during the first half of 2003 was due the fishing

restrictions established as a consequence of the “B/T Prestige” oil spill previously mentioned.

The geographical distribution of the trip types obtained show that the highest effort is mainly

located in Bay of Biscay (Map 3.2.1.2-a). LLS-POL has a distribution located in western

Galician waters while LLS-HKE and LLS-BSS are more abundant in the central part of the Bay

of Biscay.

Regarding the multivariate analysis of the technical features of the LLS fleet, even though

two clusters were obtained (Figure 3.2.1.2-d), the low consistency of the second cluster

indicates that the LLS fleet can be considered as a homogenous group.

Northern Spanish coastal set gillnet fleet

A total of 65,488 trips from logbooks of the period 2003-2005 were compiled, and the

number of species used in the analysis was reduced to 18 and one category called ‘others’

65


that joins the rest of species. The multivariate analysis was carried out by year separately

obtaining SC around 0.5 (Figure 3.2.1.2-e) and a different number of clusters by year (Table

3.2.1.2-c and Figure 3.2.1.2-f). The majority of clusters show catch profiles compounded by

a different combination of species where, if a some type of pattern was needed to be

defined, they could be divided into trips targeting benthonic species (as crustaceans,

cuttlefish, and benthonic sharks), and trips targeting a combination of demersal and pelagic

species as mackerel and horse mackerel. However, two clusters present enough significance

for being followed along the period:

GNS-MNZ: trips targeting monkfish (Lophius spp.).

GNS-HKE: trips targeting hake (Merluccius merluccius).

As a result, the rest of the clusters can not be considered consistent enough to keep

independent and could join in a mixed trip type (GNS-mixed).

In Figure 3.2.1.2-g an increase in number of fishing trips can be observed from May to

September. Nevertheless, GNS-HKE and GNS-MNZ do not show any clear seasonal pattern.

The effort level is uniformly distributed along the coast; however both the targeted trips,

GNS-HKE and GNS-MNZ, seem to be more concentrated in the Bay of Biscay (Map 3.2.1.2-

b).

Regarding the multivariate analysis of the technical features of the fleet, two clusters were

obtained (Figure 3.2.1.2-h). On the one hand, the second cluster shows a very low

consistency; on the other one, information about gear type (“volanta”, “rasco”…) is not in

logbooks and a correspondence analysis between trip types and fleet segments is not

possible. In consequence, the Northern Spanish coastal GNS fleet must be considered as one

homogeneous group as for technical features of the fleet.

Northern Spanish coastal trammel net fleet

The number of trips was 31,038 and the number of species or species group was reduced to

14 and the category ‘others’. The multivariate analysis gives SC around 0.40 (Figure 3.2.1.2-

i), indicating a weak structure that could be artificial. In order to identify consistent trip types

among the 10 clusters obtained each year, only two of them show internal SC values higher

than 0.5 through the time series (Table 3.2.1.2-d and Figure 3.2.1.2-j):

GTR-CRU: trips targeting crustaceans.

GTR-MNZ: trips targeting monk (Lophius spp.).

The rest of clusters were joined in a mixed trip type (GTR-mixed) in order to show the

temporal and spatial analysis in an integrated way.

66


The seasonal analysis shows the maximum values of GTR-MNZ effort during last spring and

summer, whereas GTR-CRU trips increase its value at the end of the year due to market

demand in November and December (Figure 3.2.1.2-k).

The analysis of the geographical distribution by ICES rectangle shows that GTR-CRU trips are

distributed in the Western part of the Bay of Biscay and Southern Galician waters, whereas

the highest effort exerted by GTR-MNZ trips is located in Western Bay of Biscay (Map

3.2.1.2-c).

In relation to the technical features of the GNS fleet, a multivariate analysis gives only one

homogeneous group of vessels (Figure 3.2.1.2-l).

3.2.1.3. Segmentation of the Gulf of Cádiz fleets using mobile

gears

The fleets of the Gulf of Cádiz that employ mobile gears comprise trawling gear, purse

seines, longlines and dredges. Both longlines and dredges may be considered as

monospecific fisheries because these mainly target sharks and a bivalve mollusc, (Chamalea

gallina), respectively. The objective of this work is focused on mixed fisheries, and

consequently, the following analyses will deal with the trawl and the purse seine fleets.

Information from logbooks and fleet census from the different ports reveal that the coverage

is over 70% for both fleets (Table 3.2.1.3-a). Nonetheless, detailed information by species

show great differences, as happening with the two main species fished by trawl, hake and

Norway lobster, which are TAC managed.

Gulf of Cádiz bottom otter trawl fleet (OTB)

The trawl catch show strong annual differences particularly in blue whiting landings, which

have passed from 3,000 t in 2003-2004 to about 300 t in 2005. However, this decline is in

agreement with the biomass fluctuations estimated by the evaluation surveys carried out in

the area (Sobrino et al., 2003, 2004, 2005b).

The number of total fishing trips was 64,044 during 2003-2005, varying from 18,000 in 2003

and 2004 to 27,000 in 2005. Due to the marked multispecific character of this fleet, the

matrix of OTB landings was reduced to 22 species or species groups, which represented at

least 0.2% of the total landing. The annual multivariate analysis yields a low SC with

differences between the three years (Figure 3.2.1.3-a). In 2003, the same SC values were

found for 2 and 4 groups, while 2 and 4 groups with very different SC (0.59 and 0.31) were

obtained in 2004 and 2005, respectively.

In 2003 and 2004, the analysis of the catch profiles shows one cluster clearly targeting blue

whiting together with another mixed cluster with high landings of hake and deepwater rose

67


shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris) (Table 3.2.1.3-b and Figure 3.2.1.3-b). For the same

period, the analysis of 4 clusters shows the same “blue whiting” cluster and other three

clusters more which are subdivisions of the mixed cluster mentioned above. One of these

three clusters shows high percentages of typical coastal species such as mantis shrimp

(Squilla mantis), caramote prawn (Melicertus kerathurus) and wedge sole (Dicologlosa

cuneata).

In 2005, blue whiting landings sharply dropped and four clusters completely different are

obtained. Cluster 2 shows dominance of cephalopod species, as octopus (Octopus vulgaris)

and cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis). Clusters 1 and 4 show a sort of difference related to the

fishing depth: one cluster is compounded by species of deeper distribution such as deep rose

shrimp and hake; and the another one present more coastal species. The SC obtained in

2005 was the lowest of the analyzed period, in spite of the fact that the catch profiles of

these last two clusters are more similar to the historical data of these fleet landings (Sobrino,

pers. com.).

The monthly analysis does not show any seasonal pattern (Figure 3.2.1.3-c). The decrease of

the fishing trips during the fourth quarter is due to the management measures implemented

in the area since 2004, consisting of a 45-day closed season.

Gulf of Cádiz purse seine fleet (PS)

The fishing effort of the purse seine fleet was 26,225 fishing trips during 2003-2005. On

average, it did not show strong fluctuations from the mean annual fishing trips (8,700). For

the analysis only those species or categories that represented at least 0.2% over the total

annual landings were considered. As a result, 6 species or categories were selected.

The estimated SC showed higher values for four clusters in 2003 and 2004, but only for two

clusters in 2005 (Figure 3.2.1.3-d). The only two common clusters among years show the

highest internal consistency, and they are in concordance with the knowledge of the fishery

(Table 3.2.1.3-c and Figure 3.2.1.3-e):

PS-ANE: trips targeting anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus).

PS-PIL: trips targeting sardine (Sardina pilchardus).

The other two clusters obtained in 2003 and 2004 consist of trips with sardine and anchovy

together, and trips with high catches of mackerel. This last cluster is a small group

compounded by around 4% of the total trips. It is known that some vessels target mackerel

during summer; however the lack of this cluster in 2005 and its reduced representation

makes it difficult to keep it as a stable métier.

68


The monthly analysis of both trip types shows evident seasonality between the anchovy and

sardine trips (Figure 3.2.1.3-f). The PS-ANE trip type predominates during spring-summer,

whereas PS-PIL is mostly carried out from the end of summer to the end of winter, which is

coincident with their respective spawning season in the area (Millán, 1999; Ruiz et al., 2006;

Baldó et al., 2006).

3.2.1.4. Segmentation of the Gulf of Cádiz fleets using fixed gears

The Gulf of Cádiz fleet using fixed gear is officially integrated into one common group

denominated “minor-gear” fleet, and is compounded by set longlines, set gillnets, trammel

nets, traps, and hand lines. Although one sole license is required for the minor-gear fleet,

the management endorse the use of one sole gear per fishing trip. However, it is known that

the use of various types of fishing gear constitutes a habitual practice.

From the whole minor-gear fleet components, the hand line trips are not recorded in

logbooks because these only register a small fraction of the fleet consisting of larger vessels.

In this manner, the only fishing trips that are represented are those targeting bluefin tuna

(Thunnus thynnus), apart from those carried out by the fishing fleet of the port of Tarifa that

target blackspot seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo) in the waters of the Strait of Gibraltar. As a

result, this fleet was excluded from the segmentation analyses.

Contrarily to the case of the Gulf of Cádiz fleet using mobile gears, the coverage level of the

logbooks in comparison to the landings of fixed gears estimated by the National Sampling

Program is very low (Table 3.2.1.4-a). This may be attributed to the fact that the fleet

mainly consists of vessels smaller than 10 m in length that do not require logbooks. In spite

of the low coverage excludes the use of logbooks for being applied in the segmentation of

the Gulf of Cádiz fleet using fixed gears, an analysis of this fleet has been done with the

purpose of examining their degree of representation.

Gulf of Cádiz set long line fleet (LLS)

This longline fleet registered a variable number of fishing trips in logbooks along the period

of analysis. The multivariate analysis gives the highest SC for three clusters in the three

years, in which 2004 and 2005 outstand with 0.8 and 0.86, respectively (Fig 3.2.1.4-a). The

catch profiles of the three clusters show three types of fishing trips characterized by their

species composition (Table 3.2.1.4-b and Fig 3.2.1.4-b):

LLS-SBR: trips targeting blackspot seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo).

LLS-SFS: trips targeting silver scabbardfish (Lepidopus caudatus).

LLS-mixed: trips with catches of pink dentex (Dentex gibosus), forkbeards (Phycis

spp.), conger (Conger conger), and others.

69


The LLS-SBR trip type, targeting spotted seabream, coincides with the exploitation strategy

carried out by the fleets of the ports of Tarifa and Conil that work in the Strait of Gibraltar

and its adjacent waters using the “voracera” gear (see Section 2 and Annex I). With respect

to the LLS-SFS trip type, targeting silver scabbard fish, it is known that this fishery began at

the beginning of this decade resulting from searching of new fishing grounds for red

seabream around the nearby areas of Gibraltar Strait. Lastly, the LLS-mixed trip type is

perfectly identified by the longline fishery exerted by the fleet from the port of Conil, where

pink dentex outstands among a variety of species.

The monthly analysis of catch profiles shows a greater concentration of fishing trips in the

second semester (Fig 3.2.1.4-c). However, the scarce of LLS-SBR trips in the first semester,

especially noticeable in 2005, can be related to the biological stop of 60 days applied during

these months to the red seabream fishery in some areas of the Strait of Gibraltar.

Gulf of Cádiz set gillnet fleet (GNS)

This type of fixed gear show a similar number of fishing trips throughout the period analyzed

(around 2,400 trips), although landings are quite diverse. The CLARA analysis gives

significant SC (> 0.5), allocating five clusters in 2003 and six in 2004 and 2005 (Fig 3.2.1.4-

d). However, six clusters have been extracted in 2003 so as to facilitate the comparison

between years. In fact, it has allowed defining five types of fishing trips easily identified by

the knowledge of the fishery (Table 3.2.1.4-c and Fig 3.2.1.4-e):

GNS-MGR: trips targeting meagre (Argyrosomus regius), pink dentex (Dentex

gibosus), and rubber-lip grunt (Plectorhinchus mediterraneus).

GNS-CET: Trips targeting wedge sole (Dicologoglossa cuneata).

GNS-HKE: Trips targeting hake (Merluccius merluccius), pandoras (Pagellus spp.),

and striped seabream (Lithognathus mormyrus).

GNS-SOL/CTC: Trips targeting soles (Solea spp.) and cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis).

GNS-mixed: trips with catches of a variety of species.

However, since prior information on the fishery is consistent with the defined types of fishing

trips, the sixth cluster, directed to octopus, may surely consist of an incorrect gear allocation

in the logbooks by ascribing to gillnet the hand jip catch when both gears are applied

simultaneously in the same fishing trip.

Regarding fishing strategies, it is possible to find a relationship between the trip types

obtained and some gillnet gear modifications. In fact, the GNS-MGR trip type coincides with

those designated as “enmalle claro” (big mesh size), while the GNS-HKE trip type matches

with a gear of smaller mesh size designated as “enmalle ciego” (see Section 2). The GNS-

CET fishing trips are highly mono-specific (> 70% of the landings) due to their particular

fishing strategy by concentrating their set time to the hours of major activity of the species.

70


The fishing trip GNS-SOL/CTC presents high landings of sole and cuttlefish most because

both the species share habitats and reproductive seasonality (Arias and Drake, 1990;

Andrade et al., 2001; Ramos et al., 2000). Nevertheless, this type of fishing trip may be split

in two components separating both the species in 2004.

The monthly analysis of catch profiles show marked seasonality in some of the fishing trip

types, related to the abundance of the target species. The GNS-SOL shows greater activity in

the winter and spring months coinciding with the reproductive stages of its target species,

while the GNS-CET mainly concentrates in winter when wedge sole is spawning (Jiménez et

al., 1998; Vila et al., 2002). However, the GNS-MGR and GNS-HKE fishing trips do not show

any clear seasonal trend (Figure 3.2.1.4-f).

As a resume, even though some trip types are in concordance with the knowledge o the

fishery, the low coverage of the logbooks do not allow reaching robustness enough to be

used for the catch data segmentation.

Gulf of Cádiz set trammel fleet (GTR)

The fleet using trammel nets show variable fishing trips during the period analyzed. The

landed species are quite diverse, in which most noteworthy are cuttlefish, prawn and wedge

sole.

The CLARA analysis gives low SC that only show a certain level of significance for two

clusters in 2005 (Figure 3.2.1.4-g). During this year, the results of the analysis are

determined by the high degree of mono-specificity of a small number of fishing trips (8%)

targeting caramote prawn (Melicertus kerathurus) (Table 3.2.1.4-d and Fig 3.2.1.4-h). In

spite of the low analytical resolution of the data, a fishing trip focusing on cuttlefish can be

identified and related to a fishery using an open trammel net (“trasmallo claro”) (see Section

2). This net whose mesh size is between 45-50 mm is mainly applied in the Doñana National

Park fishing ground, as that targeting caramote prawn (“trasmallo ciego”) with a mesh size

of 20-25 mm (Sobrino et al., 2005a; Silva et al., 2006).

The monthly analysis does not show any clear trend (Fig 3.2.1.4-i), although the number of

fishing trips increase in winter-spring possibly caused by the life cycle of the target species

(Ramos et al., 2002; Silva et al., 2003). The fishing trips targeting deep rose shrimp in 2005

coincide with the spawning season of the species when this resource is made available to the

fishery (Rodríguez, 1985; Silva et al.; 2006).

Gulf of Cádiz trap fleet (FPO)

Logbooks give a very different number of trips for the trap fleet through the time period,

from 182 trips in 2004 to 1,073 trips in 2005. Besides a probable improvement in logbooks

71


recording, this difference may also be attributed to increased abundance of the octopus

resource (Octopus vulgaris) (Sobrino et al., 2005b). The SC shows high values (over 0.9) for

different number of clusters during the period of analysis (Fig 3.2.1.4-j). However, the

analysis of their catch profiles (Table 3.2.1.4-e) permits to identify two types of fishing trips

repeated along the three years (Fig 3.2.1.4-k):

FPO-OCT: targeting specifically octopus (Octopus vulgaris).

FPO-mixed: with a variety of species (black seabream, white seabream, and

others).

These results are in agreement with the knowledge of the fishery, which employs different

types of gears depending on the target species. The first trip type matches with a part of the

fleet using clay pots and specific traps for octopus, while the second one is produced by

using other type of trap designed for targeting fishes and molluscs. However, artificial

clusters with nonsensical species combinations or low representation in effort or landings are

consequence of the logbooks misreporting. For instance, the cluster 3 in 2003 and 2004 with

high landings of two species so different ecologically as octopus and Atlantic pomfret, is

probably due to an erroneous allocation of the gear or a combined employment of different

gears within the same fishing trip.

Excepting 2005, the monthly analysis of catch profiles (Fig 3.2.1.4-l) shows a clear

seasonality during summer in agreement with the description of Silva et al. (2002a). The

FPO-OCT trip type employs clay pots and traps throughout the year; nevertheless its major

activity occurs from spring to autumn, coincident with the reproductive peak of the target

species (Silva et al., 2002b). The anomaly observed during 2005 could be caused by the

marked increase in octopus landings. Increase and declines of octopus abundance may be of

cyclic nature because such fluctuations were observed in the past during the nineties,

possibly due to environmental factors that were beneficial to the life cycle of the species

(Sobrino et al., 2002).

72


3.2.2. Segmentation of the Portuguese fleets

In order to give a clearer presentation of results, the Portuguese fleets were also divided into

fleets using mobile gears and fleets using fixed gears.

3.2.2.1. Segmentation of the Portuguese fleets using mobile gears

Taking into account the gear characteristics, data analysis was performed separately for the

trawl and purse-seine fleets.

Portuguese bottom otter trawl fleet (OTB)

The analysis was performed in two steps. In a first segmentation, all trawl trips were

assigned to two main clusters, corresponding to Demersal Fish and Crustacean fisheries

(Figure 3.2.2.1-a). These two groups could be obtained directly from the licensing system,

but due to changes in the objectives of the fishing trip, some vessels/trips were assigned

differently. However, these two groups constitute a mixture of trips that could be subdivided

according to their target species. A second classification was performed for each group and

the following results were obtained:

Demersal fish fishery

Although the average silhouette width was not large, typical of a mixed fishery, a common

structure in the data was found. Some groups are well defined (SC 0.5) and directed to

one species, others are composed by trips targeting different species. Figure 3.2.2.1-b shows

the cluster silhouette plot for each year. There are small differences between years but three

main groups can be considered for the whole period:

OTB-HOM: trips targeting horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus).

OTB-CEPH: trips targeting cephalopods (octopus and squids)

OTB-MIX: trips targeting a mixture of species as horse mackerel, hake (Merluccius

merluccius), pouting (Trisopterus luscus) and axillary seabream (Pagellus acarne)

among others.

The OTB-MIX is the most important group, constituting 44% to 51% of all fish trips. Horse

mackerel is a constant presence in all groups. In 2005, another group was found, with few

but well defined trips targeting blue whiting (OTB-WHB).

Figure 3.2.2.1-c summarizes the landing profiles in value for each trip type. Figure 3.2.2.1-d

shows the distribution of species proportions within the different clusters.

73


The cluster OTB-HOM shows a clear seasonal pattern with a higher number of trips in the

first half of the year, whereas the clusters OTB-CEPH and OTB-WHB are more important in

the second half. The trips of the cluster OTB-MIX are evenly distributed along the year

(Figure 3.2.2.1-e).

Crustacean fishery

There are two main target species in this fishery, which are the Norway lobster (Nephrops

norvegicus, NEP) and the deepwater rose shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris, DPS). These two

species have a different but overlapping depth distribution. Rose shrimp occurs from 100 to

350 metres of depth whereas Norway lobster distributes from 200 to 800 metres.

The cluster analysis gives two clusters for the three years (with an average silhouette width

larger than 0.5, Figure 3.2.2.1-f), with differences in the species composition which are the

result of changes in the abundance of these two species. Although the trip clusters are well

defined, they are not constant along the period.

In Figure 3.2.2.1-g, the landing profiles in value for each trip type are presented. Figure

3.2.2.1-h shows the distribution of species proportions within each cluster. In 2003, one of

the clusters was directed for rose shrimp, the other being a mixed cluster targeting both

species. In 2004, both clusters are mixed, with one species dominant over the other. In

2005, one cluster is directed to Nephrops and in the other, although the catch being a

mixture, the deepwater rose shrimp is dominant.

Other important species in this fishery are hake and anglerfish. The other crustacean

species, namely red and scarlet shrimps are important in some years and some clusters.

The distribution of the fishing trips of each cluster along the year (Figure 3.2.2.1-i) follows

the abundance trend of the dominant species in the cluster, i.e., rose shrimp is more

important in winter and spring and Nephrops in summer.

Portuguese purse-seine fleet (PS)

The cluster analysis for the purse-seine fleet revealed in all years four well-defined clusters,

with high average silhouette, and another cluster not so well defined, with a lower silhouette

(Figure 3.2.2.1-j). From the four well-defined clusters, three correspond roughly to trips with

a large proportion in value of one species:

PS-PIL: trips targeting sardine (Sardina pilchardus).

PS-MAS: trips targeting chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus).

PS-HOM: trips targeting horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus).

74


The fourth is a cluster made of trips with a high proportion of non-target species included in

the “Others” category. The fifth cluster, which is less well defined in all years, includes trips

with a mixture of the target species (Figures 3.2.2.1-k).

When calculating the proportion of vessels with more than 50% of the trips classified in just

one cluster, it was found that, while more than 100 vessels each year had more than 50% of

their trips classified into the cluster defined by a high sardine proportion, this did not happen

for any of the other clusters. Therefore, the other clusters not characterised by sardine, do

not correspond to an identifiable and fixed set of vessels in the fleet. As an example, every

year, around 10 vessels had more than 50% of the trips classified in the cluster

characterised by high proportion of horse mackerel.

Figures 3.2.2.1-l shows the number of trips in each cluster along the months in 2003, 2004

and 2005. The cluster with high proportion of sardine shows a marked fluctuation of the

number of trips, being most of the trips done in the spring and summer. Some of the other

clusters, although with a much smaller number of trips, show opposite trends, with a high

proportion of the trips outside those months. This probably shows, for some vessels, changes

in the target species along the year, and therefore the contribution with trips for different

clusters.

3.2.2.2. Segmentation of the Portuguese fleets using fixed gears

(multi-gear fleet)

Table 3.2.2.2-a shows that the number of vessels of the multi-gear fleet decreased from

2003 to 2005. Nevertheless, the number of daily landings decreased in the first year but

increased again from 2004 to 2005. The number of species that account for 95% of the total

annual landings in value varied between 55 and 61. The complexity of this fleet has made

that the CLARA method, used for analysing the rest of the fleets, had to be contrasted with

an alternative methodology. Particularly, due to the polyvalent character of this fleet, it is

not possible to link a single gear to a particular landing. Therefore, a multivariate regression

tree was thought to be an appropriate option for relating catch profiles and groups of gears.

Non-hierarchical cluster analysis

A non- hierarchical cluster analysis requires the indication of the number of clusters (k). As a

first step and in order to find the optimal k, the number of clusters was changed between 2

and 20. k corresponding to the highest silhouette coefficient (SC) was considered as the final

number of clusters. The silhouette coefficient is plotted against k in Figure 3.2.2.2-a.

Increasing trends can be observed until k = 16 (2003), 18 (2004) and 14 (2005), which

were therefore considered as the final number of clusters.

75


From the silhouette plots (Figure 3.2.2.2-b) it can be seen that for each year there are

clusters with a higher silhouette coefficient while other clusters show lower values. By

plotting the species compositions it can be seen that clusters with a higher coefficient show

one or more dominant species in proportion. Clusters with lower coefficients show a mixture

of different species and were therefore named as mix-species. These mix-species clusters

may be consequence of the simultaneous use of different fishing gears or of simultaneous

exploitation of different habitats. Table 3.2.2.2-b contains a summary for each cluster or

fishing trip type.

The average silhouette coefficient shown in the silhouette plots (Figure 3.2.2.2-b) for the

total number of observations differ slightly from the maximum value shown in Figure

3.2.2.2-a due to the different random number generator used in both estimations. However,

exploratory analysis showed that the optimal K is not sensitive to changing random number

in the CLARA method.

Multivariate regression tree

The results of the multivariate regressions trees are shown in Figure 3.2.2.2-c. In the year

2003 there were no administrative fishing licenses attributed to bottom longlines deep sea

species, therefore this gear cannot be shown in the tree graph and the compared analysis

cannot be performed for 2003. Therefore, for the years 2004 and 2005 the first three

divisions separate:

dredges (landing essentially bivalves).

pelagic longlines with a specific fishing license for swordfish (landing essentially large

pelagic teleosts and elasmobranchii) and

set bottom longlines for deep-sea fish (black scabbardish, including also teleosts and

elasmobranchii).

For the remaining vessels that capture a mixture of different groups of species the following

division separates vessels with and without traps and pots. This last branch (without traps

and pots) can be identified as nets (gillnets and trammel nets), which are not possible to

separate because the vessels have licences to operate with both types of nets.

So, accordingly to the results of the regression tree it was possible to identify for the 2004

and 2005 the following fleet segments:

Dredges.

Bottom long lines or set longlines (LLS).

Pelagic long lines or drifting longlines (LLD).

Nets (gillnets and trammel).

Pots and traps.

76


Figure 3.2.2.2-d shows the relative importance (% in value) of the tree clusters in each

group of species in 2004 and 2005. In both years bivalves were recorded in the landings of

the dredges ( 100%) and a wide range of group of species were important in the landings

from the nets, particularly demersal species ( 40%). Large pelagic species were mainly

landed by pelagic long-line (LLD), with an importance of 68% in 2004 and 88% in 2005.

Bathyal species landings were mainly recorded from bottom long-line (LLS), with 86% in

2004 and 74% in 2005. Crustacean and Cephalopods were mostly landed (more than 60%)

by traps& pots.

Figure 3.2.2.2-e shows the relative importance (% in value) of tree clusters in each fishing

trip type in 2004 and 2005. In 2005, some fishing trip types were not identified, such as,

Conger (cluster 4, in 2004), Pagellus (cluster 13, in 2004), and Sepia (cluster 7, in 2004).

The majority of the fishing trip types are included in the tree cluster nets and pots&traps. For

example, the fishing trip type Aphanopus (blackscabard fish) is mainly included in the tree

clusters bottom long-line (90%) and nets (7%); the Spisula solida (bivalve), Chamelea

gallina (bivalve) and Solenidae fishing trip types are all included in the dredges and the

Merluccius fishing trip type is included in the bottom long-line, nets and pots&traps.

77


3.3. Conclusions

The greatest goal of the IBERMIX project is to achieve a fleet segmentation which permits to

classify the real variety of the fleet structure by using the actual information available. Other

aspects, as the possible limitations of the respective National Sampling Programmes, the

adaptation to the new CFP or the demands of assessors and managers will be treated in the

Section 4.

Taking into account the results of the multivariate analysis carried out, those trip types which

present a high mathematical significance and feasibility on the segmentation of their fishing

data have been chosen as métiers and integrated into a hierarchical diagram.

3.3.1. Métiers of the Atlantic Spanish fleets

Regarding the Northern Spanish coastal fleets using mobile gears, the bottom otter trawl

fleet (OTB) can be split into four trip types: trips targeting horse mackerel (OTB-HOM), trips

targeting mackerel (OTB-MAC), trips targeting blue whiting (OTB-WHB), and trips with a

variety of species in landings (OTB-mixed). In the case of the Northern Spanish coastal

bottom pair trawl fleet (PTB), two trip types can be taken out: trips targeting blue whiting

(PTB-WHB) and trips targeting mackerel (PTB-MAC). The Northern Spanish coastal purse

seine fleet (PS) can be segmented in six different trip types: trips targeting sardine (PS-PIL),

trips targeting horse mackerels (PS-JAX), trips targeting anchovy (PS-ANE), trips targeting

mackerel (PS-MAC), trips targeting seabreams (PS-SBX), and trips with mixed catch (PS-

mixed).

In the case of the Northern Spanish coastal fleet using fixed gears, the set longline fleet

(SLL) was found to be compounded of five trip types: trips targeting conger (LLS-COE), trips

targeting hake (LLS-HKE), trips targeting pollacks (LLS-POL), trips targeting seabass (LLS-

BSS), and trips with a mixed catch (LLS-mixed). In the case of the Northern Spanish coastal

gillnet fleet (GNS), due to the highly mixed character of this fishery, only two clean trip types

can be taken out: trips targeting hake (GN-HKE) and trips targeting anglerfishes (GN-MNZ);

the rest of trips being joined in a mixed group (GNS-mixed). Nevertheless, the Northern

Spanish coastal trammel net fleet (GTR) cannot be split in a consistent way even though to

have found some reasonable trip types in concordance with the knowledge of the fishery.

78


Northern Spanish coastal fleets

Gear category

Gear Group

Fleet Trip type Description

OTB-HOMNorthern Spanish coastal bottom otter trawl targeting horse mackerel

OTB-MAC Northern Spanish coastal bottom otter trawl targeting mackerel

OTB-WHB Northern Spanish coastal bottom otter trawl targeting blue whiting

Bottom otter trawl (OTB)

OTB-mixedNorthern Spanish coastal bottom otter trawl targeting a variety of demersal species

PTB-WHB Northern Spanish coastal bottom pair trawl targeting blue whiting

BO

TTO

M T

RAW

LS

Bottom pair trawl (PTB)

PTB-MAC Northern Spanish coastal bottom pair trawl targeting mackerel

PS-PIL Northern Spanish coastal purse seine targeting sardine

PS-ANE Northern Spanish coastal purse seine targeting anchovy

PS-MAC Northern Spanish coastal purse seine mackerel

PS-JAX Northern Spanish coastal purse seine mackerels

PS-SBX Northern Spanish coastal purse seine seabreams

MO

BIL

E G

EAR

S

SU

RRO

UN

DIN

G N

ETS

Purse seine (PS)

PS-mixed Group of mixed unspecified trips of the Northern Spanish coastal purse seine fleet

LLS-COE Northern Spanish coastal set longline targeting conger

LLS-HKENorthern Spanish coastal set longline targeting hake

LLS-POLNorthern Spanish coastal set longline targeting pollacks

LLS-BSS Northern Spanish coastal set longline targeting seabass

LON

GLI

NE

Set long lines (LLS)

LLS-mixed Group of mixed unspecified trips of the Northern Spanish coastal set longline fleet

GNS-HKENorthern Spanish coastal set gillnet targeting hake

GNS-MNZ Northern Spanish coastal set gillnet anglerfishes Set gillnet (GNS) GNS-mixed

Group of mixed unspecified trips of the Northern Spanish coastal set gillnet fleet

FIXED

GEARS

EN

TAN

GLI

NG

N

ETS

AN

D G

ILLN

ETS

Trammel net (GTR)

GTRNorthern Spanish coastal trammel net fleet exploiting demersal fish

In relation to the Gulf of Cádiz fleets, it is possible to apply the IBERMIX results only on the

mobile fleets, because the low coverage of fixed gears on logbooks does not allow us to

apply the IBERMIX results to the whole fishery in a properly way. So that, regarding the Gulf

of Cádiz bottom otter trawl fleet, due to no significant trip types were found, it can be kept

as a homogenous group (OTB). However, it is possible to disaggregate the Gulf of Cádiz

purse seine fleet in two different groups regarding their catch profile: trips targeting anchovy

(PS-ANE) and trips targeting sardine (PS-PIL).

79


Southern Spanish Atlantic coastal fleets (Gulf of Cádiz)

Gear category

Gear Group

Fleet Trip type Description

BO

TTO

MTRAW

LS

Bottom otter trawl (OTB)

OTBGulf of Cádiz bottom otter trawl targeting a

mixed of crustaceans, cephalopods, and demersal fish

PS-PIL Gulf of Cádiz purse seine targeting sardine

MO

BIL

E G

EAR

S

SU

RRO

UN

DIN

G

NETS Purse seine

(PS) PS-ANE Gulf of Cádiz purse seine targeting anchovy

FIXED

GEARS

MU

LTIG

EAR

FLEET

Multigear fleet

Multigear fleet

Gulf of Cádiz multigear fleet using minor gears

3.3.2. Métiers of the Portuguese fleets.

Bottom otter trawl fleet (OTB)

This is the first time that daily trips are used for the identification of fleet components in

Portugal in trawl fleet. The degree of detail used will led to a more precise definition of the

fishing trips, which can be useful for the estimation of the target effort. It is important to

emphasize that the results of the classification could be different if the basic data are in

weight or value. Some species with low value, as small pelagic fish and blue whiting, only

become important if their volume in the catches is large, whereas valuable species, as

octopus and crustaceans, constitute normally target species.

The Portuguese trawl fleet has two components: the Demersal Fish (PT-OTB-fish) and the

Crustacean (PT-OTB-crust). In the Demersal Fish component (PT-OTB-fish) 3 clusters or

fishing trip types were identified:

o Horse mackerel

o Cephalopods

o Mixed Demersal Fish.

80


For 2005, a cluster with trips targeting blue whiting was clearly identified. Only forthcoming

analyses shall confirm the consistency of this cluster.

Although clearly defined, the Crustacean trawl (PT-OTB-crust) clusters do not follow the

same pattern every year, depending on the abundance of the two main target crustacean

species, which are Norway lobster and deepwater rose shrimp. There can be one target

species by cluster or mixed clusters with different percentages of these two species. Under

these conditions an overall cluster or fishing trip type designated Crustaceans was

considered more appropriate.

Campos et al. (2007) made a first attempt to identify the trawl clusters, using landings data.

However, the approach used in their work was different from the one presented in this

document. The data comprised the 2002-2004 monthly landings in weight per vessel and the

method of classification used was a hierarchical clustering analysis. The results of that study

are similar, pointing to six clusters targeting horse mackerel, blue whiting, cephalopods,

Norway lobster, shrimp and one mixed.

Purse seine fleet (PS)

Four well-defined fishing trip types were identified for the Portuguese purse seine fleet

component:

o Sardine

o Spanish mackerel

o Horse mackerel

o Mixed

There are no previous attempts to define fishing activities based on individual trips for this

fleet. The results obtained in this work confirm previous empirical observations that indicated

a dominance of sardine as the target species of this fleet. Nevertheless, there are groups of

trips that clearly indicate other species, such as Spanish mackerel and horse mackerel, as

the main targets. Therefore, even if further exploration of these data indicates that the

clusters not dominated by sardine are not big enough, in terms of trips or vessels, to justify

further segmentation of the purse-seine fleet, in a multi-fleet and mixed-fisheries framework

it may be important to take into account the proportion of the effort of the purse-seine fleet

allocated to the different fishing activities.

Multi-gear fleet

The identification of the segments or metiers of the Portuguese multi-gear fleet is complex

because the data used in the analysis (daily landing) does not include the information of the

gear used. The linkage of the fishing trip type with the fishing license information did not

81


allow identifying distinctively the gears used in each trip, because some vessels are licenced

for more than one gear. The use of the log-books information is an adequate way to solve

this lack of information; however, actually, the amount of records and the information

available in the Portuguese log-books from the multi-gear fleet are insufficient to perform a

satisfactory analysis. Nevertheless, even though this type of difficulty, the analysis

performed has provided a first proposal for this fleet segmentation.

The following table shows the proposal for the overall Portuguese fleets operating in the

Portuguese continental waters (ICES, Div. IXa).

Portuguese fleets

Gear category

Gear group Fleet Trip type Description

OTB-crust

Portuguese bottom otter trawl targeting crustaceans

OTB-HOM: Portuguese bottom otter trawl trips targeting horse mackerel

OTB-ceph Portuguese bottom otter trawl trips targeting cephalopods

BOTTOMTRAWLS

Bottom otter trawl

(OTB) OTB-fish

OTB-mixed Portuguese bottom otter trawl trips with mixed catch

DREDGES

Boatdredge(DRB)

DRB Portuguese dredge fleet targeting mollluscs

(Bivalves)

PS-PIL Portuguese purse seine trips targeting sardine

PS-HOM Portuguese purse seine trips targeting horse

mackerel

PS-MAS Portuguese purse seine trips targeting chub

mackerel

SU

RRO

UN

DIN

G

NETS

Purse seine (PS)

PS-mixed Portuguese purse seine trips with mixed catch

MO

BIL

E G

EAR

S

LONGLINE

Drifting longlines

(LLD) LLD

Portuguese drifting longline targeting large pelagic fish

LONGLINE

Setlonglines

(LLS) LLS

Portuguese set longline fleet targeting deepwater fish

Trammel net

(GTR) ENTANGLING NETS AND GILLNETS Set gillnet

(GNS)

GNS/GTRPortuguese fleets using tangling nets and gillnets

targeting demersal fish

FIXED

GEARS

TRAPS

Pots and traps(FPO)

FPOPortuguese fleet using pots and traps targeting

cephalopods (Octopus)

82

IBERM

IX r

eport

Sec

tion 3

Tab

le 3

.1.2

.1-a

. Spec

ies

gro

up u

sed in t

he

anal

ysis

of

the

Port

ugues

e M

ulti-

gea

r flee

t.

83


Table 3.2.1.1-a. Logbook coverage level (in landings) for the Northern Spanish coastal fleets

using mobile gears.

Gear Class FLEET

(DCR Level 4) Coverage

(%) SURROUNDING

NETSPURSE SEINES 82.3

BOTTOM OTTER TRAWL BOTTOM TRAWL

BOTTOM PAIR TRAWL 74.0

Table 3.2.1.1-b. Trip type catch profiles of the Northern Spanish coastal bottom otter trawl

(OTB) fleet obtained by clustering by 3 and 4 clusters in the period 2003-2005. (OTB-HOM: trips

targeting horse mackerel; OTB-MAC: trips targeting mackerel, OTB-WHB: trips targeting blue

whiting; OTB-mixed: trips targeting a mixed of demersal species).

k3 OTB-mixed OTB-HOM OTB-MAC

spp 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005

Eledone cirrhosa 4.6 3.7 4.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2

Illex spp. 3.6 4.8 2.9 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1

Lepidorhombus spp. 5.3 5.7 6.4 1.2 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.3

Lophius spp. 8.9 8.6 11.5 1.6 1.0 1.5 0.9 0.7 0.5


Micromesistius poutassou 29.1 31.0 32.1 1.5 1.1 4.1 1.4 1.3 2.0

Nephrops norvegicus 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Scombrus spp 5.4 7.6 7.5 7.4 10.3 11.9 72.7 73.2 85.5

Trachurus spp. 12.5 11.2 8.3 82.6 83.3 76.4 21.7 21.3 9.8

Trisopterus spp. 4.1 4.7 4.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.2

Others 16.7 17.4 16.6 2.9 2.0 2.8 1.2 1.3 0.9

TOTAL LANDINGS (t) 7282 7657 6513 11682 18373 16922 8995 11003 15257

TOTAL EFFORT (days) 7833 8943 7183 3801 5086 5372 1538 2351 2460

k4 OTB-mixed OTB-WHB OTB-HOM OTB-MAC

spp 2003 2004 2005 2003 2003 2004 2005 2003 2003 2004 2005 2003

Eledone cirrhosa 3.5 3.5 5.1 5.4 3.9 2.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2

Illex spp. 4.0 4.3 3.9 3.3 5.3 1.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1

Lepidorhombus spp. 8.5 8.4 10.0 3.0 3.1 1.8 1.3 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.3

Lophius spp. 14.8 12.2 18.4 4.7 4.9 2.5 1.7 1.0 1.6 0.9 0.6 0.5

Merluccius merluccius 9.0 5.4 7.8 8.3 3.2 2.6 1.8 1.1 1.5 0.8 0.6 0.6

Micromesistius poutassou 6.3 6.8 8.1 45.8 54.5 58.8 1.7 1.3 3.6 1.2 1.3 1.4

Nephrops norvegicus 2.0 1.2 1.5 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Scombrus spp 3.2 8.4 5.7 7.3 7.8 12.3 7.5 11.1 11.6 72.8 75.5 85.8

Trachurus spp. 9.9 15.3 8.6 12.6 6.8 10.2 82.1 82.3 77.1 21.8 19.3 10.2

Trisopterus spp. 6.7 6.7 5.6 2.4 2.7 2.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2

Others 32.0 27.9 25.4 6.2 6.9 5.3 3.0 1.9 2.8 1.1 1.2 0.9

TOTAL LANDINGS (t) 2968 3872 3601 4197 3821 3394 11856 19040 16538 8938 10299 15159

TOTAL EFFORT (days) 4598 5733 5492 3113 3248 1865 3945 5263 5261 1516 2136 2397

84


Table 3.2.1.1-c. Mean technical features of the three fleet segments obtained in the Northern

Spanish coastal OTB fleet.

VESSEL 1 VESSEL 2 VESSEL 3

size 26.5 28.2 31.3

tonnage 118.8 144.4 193.6

Nº 31 55 9

Table 3.2.1.1-d. Trip type catch profiles of the Northern Spanish coastal bottom pair trawl

(PTB) fleet in the period 2003-2005. (“PTB-WHB”: trips targeting mainly blue whiting; and “PTB-

MAC”: trips targeting mainly mackerel).

PTB-WHB PTB-MAC

2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005

Illex spp. 1.1 0.7 0.5 7.8 0.3 0.3

Lophius spp. 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.3



Scombrus spp 1.0 0.6 0.7 68.1 72.6 62.8

Trachurus spp. 4.0 2.9 3.1 7.2 12.1 12.2

others 1.0 0.8 0.8 7.3 3.4 1.1

TOTAL LANDINGS (t) 18607 24012 22926 5805 5600 9237

EFFORT (days) 7793 9243 7648 616 980 1550

Table 3.2.1.1-e. Mean technical features of the two fleet segments obtained in the Northern

Spanish coastal PTB fleet.

VESSEL 1 VESSEL 2

size 27.3 29.3

tonnage 136.8 183.3

Nº 47 10

85


Table 3.2.1.1-f. Catch profiles of the clusters obtained in the Northern Spanish coastal purse

seine fleet (PS) in the period 2003-2005.

2003 Clus 1 Clus 2 Clus 3 Clus 4 Clus 5 Clus 6 Clus 7 Clus 8Belone belone 0.06 0.04 0.03 0 97.04 0.57 0.01 0.29Boops boops 0.03 0.60 2.12 0 0.12 0.61 0.44 0.23Engraulis encrasicolus 0.08 0.20 0.10 96.80 0.01 0.16 0.14 0.09Sardina pilchardus 96.10 3.22 8.26 1.37 0.66 2.74 0.79 2.68Scomber japonicus 0.95 0.74 0.12 0.17 0.61 0.54 0.50 93.07Scomber scombrus 0.54 1.68 54.04 0.41 0.20 0.79 2.02 0Scomberesox saurus 0.15 0.12 16.57 0.05 0 0 0 0Sparidae 0.03 0.08 0.31 0 0 0.25 88.87 0.11Trachurus spp 1.90 92.90 6.44 1.17 0.16 3.98 5.66 3.42Tunidos 0 0.03 11.62 0 0.30 0.01 0.09 0.02Others 0.17 0.39 0.39 0.03 0.91 90.36 1.49 0.10TOTAL LANDINGS (t) 17125 13465 3260 1091 234 979 172 4035EFFORT (days) 5359 5200 989 738 211 697 297 1375

2004 Clus 1 Clus 2 Clus 3 Clus 4 Clus 5 Clus 6 Clus 7Belone belone 0.17 0 4.24 0.07 1.05 0 0.10Boops boops 0.36 0.26 1.38 0.10 3.68 0.02 0.14Engraulis encrasicolus 0.29 0.22 0.54 0.09 0.87 97.16 0.04Sardina pilchardus 4.09 0.53 3.20 96.28 30.13 0.43 0.92Scomber japonicus 1.03 0.30 6.33 0.84 7.39 0.61 1.18Scomber scombrus 0.70 0.77 67.25 0.81 0.72 0.92 0.90Scomberesox saurus 0 0.05 3.13 0.04 0.19 0 0Sparidae 0.58 0.10 0.34 0.06 0.58 0 93.14Trachurus spp 1.44 97.64 6.70 1.48 54.25 0.78 3.20Tunidos 0.61 0.01 6.61 0.01 0.20 0.00 0.05Others 90.73 0.11 0.29 0.22 0.95 0.08 0.33TOTAL LANDINGS (t) 657 11524 6450 21736 3415 4281 325EFFORT (days) 626 6024 1747 8589 1519 2114 411

2005 Clus 1 Clus 2 Clus 3 Clus 4 Clus 5 Clus 6 Clus 7 Clus 8Belone belone 0.16 0.04 0.31 0.05 0.02 1.25 0.05 0Boops boops 0.14 0.12 0.18 0.10 0.35 1.27 0.05 0.03Engraulis encrasicolus 0.02 0 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.83 0 0Sardina pilchardus 95.24 2.71 5.20 4.02 3.65 1.26 0.79 2.54Scomber japonicus 1.00 0.80 89.46 0.06 1.02 0.31 0.10 0.24Scomber scombrus 1.01 1.15 0.08 92.00 1.94 0.81 0.07 0.11Scomberesox saurus 0.12 0 0.07 0.002 0.21 0.04 0 94.80Sparidae 0.09 0.34 0.40 0.10 0.32 89.68 0.04 0Trachurus spp 1.94 3.51 4.07 3.56 92.25 4.01 1.50 2.13Tunidos 0.02 0.12 0 0 0.05 0.17 97.40 0Others 0.26 91.20 0.18 0.08 0.19 0.36 0.01 0.14TOTAL LANDINGS (t) 25672 1134 3832 6687 40639 5224 4169 1495EFFORT (days) 8223 887 1005 1101 6086 964 127 175

86


Table 3.2.1.1-g. Correspondence (percentage of trips) between the trip types obtained and the

fleet technical categories of the Northern Spanish coastal purse seine fleet (PS). (PS-PIL: trips

targeting sardine; PS-ANE: trips targeting anchovy; PS-MAC: trips targeting mackerel; PS-

JAX: trips targeting horse mackerels; PS-SBX: trips targeting seabreams).

PS-ANE PS-JAX PS-PIL PS-SBX PS-mixedPSB 67.9 21.0 16.5 7.4 16.4PSS 32.1 79.0 83.5 92.6 83.6

Catch profiles 2003

PS-ANE PS-JAX PS-MAC PS-PIL PS-SBX PS-mixedPSB 66.0 13.4 41.2 16.0 22.2 12.5PSS 34.0 86.6 58.8 84.0 77.8 87.5

Catch profiles 2004

PS-JAX PS-MAC PS-PIL PS-SBX PS-mixedPSB 21.8 37.7 15.1 12.9 18.6PSS 78.2 62.3 84.9 87.1 81.4

Catch profiles 2005

87


Table 3.2.1.2-a. Logbook coverage level (in landings) for the Northern Spanish coastal fleets

using fixed gears.

Gear Group Fleet

(level 4) Coverage

(%) SET GILLNETS 100NETSTRAMMEL NETS ---

LONGLINES SET LONGLINE 41.6

88


Table 3.2.1.2-b. Catch profiles of the clusters obtained in the Northern Spanish coastal set

longline fleet (LLS) in the period 2003-2005.

2003 Clus 1 Clus 2 Clus 3 Clus 4 Clus 5 Clus 6 Clus 7 Clus 8Belone belone 0 0.94 0 0 0 0 0 0Beryx spp 0.00 9.33 0.03 0.63 0.12 0 0 0.04Brama brama 0 7.74 0 0.33 0.04 0 0 0.08Conger conger 94.62 15.31 1.22 9.00 0.92 0.44 0.23 0.03Dicentrarchus labrax 0.10 0.61 0 0 0.57 0 77.18 1.07Elasmobranchii 0.05 0.60 0.02 3.36 0.82 96.11 0.07 0Merluccius merluccius 0.01 1.34 83.58 0.17 1.55 0 0 0Micromesistius poutassou 0 6.85 2.33 0.32 1.73 0 0 0.Phycis spp 1.72 2.60 0.30 70.82 2.85 1.65 0 0Pollachius spp 0.03 1.95 0.28 0.03 0.38 0 3.95 89.27Polyprion americanus 0.06 2.18 0.02 0.88 0.25 0.09 0 0.02Scomber scombrus 0 12.50 3.17 0.01 0.01 0 0 0Sparidae 0.24 19.61 2.79 0.04 0.54 0.09 11.64 2.89Trachurus spp 0.07 2.03 0.94 0 0.07 0.00 0 0.35Trisopterus spp 0.09 3.41 0.55 0.04 0.38 0.01 0.01 0Others 3.02 12.99 4.76 14.37 89.77 1.62 6.93 6.10TOTAL LANDINGS (t) 362 191 92 115 95 187 20 53EFFORT (days) 1284 1052 278 498 614 205 488 449

14

2004 Clus 1 Clus 2 Clus 3 Clus 4 Clus 5 Clus 6Belone belone 0 0 2.35 0 0 0Beryx spp 0.07 0.35 4.81 0 0.12 0Brama brama 0 0.02 2.46 0 0.00 0.05Conger conger 93.19 0.63 6.36 0.27 2.08 0.05Dicentrarchus labrax 0.08 0 0.01 59.68 0.28 0.81Elasmobranchii 0.22 0.12 28.65 0.01 0.30 0.00Merluccius merluccius 0.04 82.87 0.67 0.25 0.67 0.07Micromesistius poutassou 0 1.32 2.78 0 2.45Phycis spp 2.05 0.16 22.55 0.02 0.59 0Pollachius spp 0.06 0.16 0.28 2.77 1.00 89.69Polyprion americanus 0.09 0 0.95 0 0.22 0.05Scomber scombrus 0.02 8.40 13.91 0.06 0 0.01Sparidae 0.56 1.06 5.15 32.47 0.84 2.30Trachurus spp 0.01 0.75 0.83 0.57 0.00 0.02Trisopterus spp 0.52 0.79 0.83 0.12 0.88 0.01Others 3.11 3.37 7.41 3.77 90.56 6.94TOTAL LANDINGS (t) 539 146 504 52 122 118EFFORT (days) 1772 705 1638 1260 1032 1110

0

2005 Clus 1 Clus 2 Clus 3 Clus 4 Clus 5 Clus 6 Clus 7Belone belone 0 2.03 0 0 0 0 0Beryx spp 0.35 11.80 0 0 0 0Brama brama 0.31 0.01 99.46 0 0 0 0Conger conger 0.53 4.22 0.03 3.14 0.11 0.13 93.07Dicentrarchus labrax 0 0.21 0 0.24 85.47 1.38 0.04Elasmobranchi

0.02

i 0.01 19.92 0 5.10 0 0 0.Merluccius merluccius 87.12 1.45 0.38 3.86 0.00 0.12 0.03Micromesistius poutassou 1.46 1.88 0.02 0.56 0 0 0.02Phycis spp 0.52 20.42 0 2.95 0 0 3.Pollachius pollachius 0.36 0.36 0.04 1.24 1.49 89.69 0.07Polyprion americanus 0.02 0.82 0 0.35 0 0.04 0.06Scomber scombrus 3.06 26.61 0 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.Sparidae 1.14 6.72 0 0.71 8.79 2.52 0.Trachurus trachurus 0.31 0.90 0 0.08 0 0.13 0.02Trisopterus spp 0.18 0.57 0.01 0.72 0 0.03 0.34Others 4.63 4.11 0.04 81.01 4.13 5.95 2.70TOTAL LANDINGS (t) 181 543 1837 111 28 104 579EFFORT (days) 850 1798 422 683 727 952 1945

11

28

0122

89


Table 3.2.1.2-c. Catch profiles of the clusters obtained in the Northern Spanish coastal set

gillnet fleet (GNS) in the period 2003-2005.

2003 Clus 1 Clus 2 Clus 3 Clus 4 Clus 5 Clus 6 Clus 7 Clus 8 Clus 9 Clus 10Beryx spp 1 0.27 0 0 2 0 0.47 0 0 0Crustaceans 14 0.02 0.00 0.31 0 0.20 2.90 0.06 0 0.08Dicentrarchus labrax 2 0.01 0.08 0.17 0.11 0 0.24 0.13 0 0.10Dicologlossa cuneata 1 0 0 0.05 0.01 0 0.33 0 0 0.04Elasmobranchii 13.87 0.24 0.43 0.73 0.65 1.02 68.04 0.64 0.02 1.01Loliginidae 0.36 0.05 0.22 0.02 0.08 0 0 0.04 0 0Lophius spp 19.72 0.38 0.84 1.14 1.66 94.08 11.29 1.18 0.06 0.89Merluccius merluccius 1.90 63.03 3.94 1.93 31.31 0.24 1.06 19.41 93.12 15.57Micromesistius poutassou 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.02Mullus spp 0.62 0.69 29.97 1.50 1.82 0.02 0.05 0.48 0.11 1.63Octopodidae 1.76 0.07 0.61 0.17 0.30 0.03 0.38 0.06 0.00 0.39Phycis spp 0.44 0.02 0 0.07 0.06 0 0.01 1 0 0.11Pleuronectiformes 7 0.03 0.16 0.40 0.35 0.61 4.87 0.17 0.00 0.50Scomber spp 0.32 1.71 0.77 0.22 2.35 0.05 0.14 61.57 1.24 1.89Sepia officinalis 8.27 0.03 0.50 0.36 0.22 0.02 0.90 0.03 0.05 0.37Sparidae 1.77 0.35 4.62 0.50 7.35 0.05 0.60 0.24 0.29 1.06Trachurus spp 0.42 0.58 20.86 0.65 29.04 0.09 0.19 5.90 0.83 4.36Trisopterus spp 2.03 2.42 13.17 1.02 7.75 0.12 1.25 5.34 0.76 65.85Others 25.10 30.07 23.82 90.76 14.73 3.49 7.23 3.56 3.43 6.11TOTAL LANDINGS (t) 223 236 104 255 204 288 43 139 423 109Effort 3110 1991 1704 3377 1381 1739 413 481 1981 1291

2004 Clus 1 Clus 2 Clus 3 Clus 4 Clus 5 Clus 6 Clus 7 Clus 8 Clus 9 Clus 10Beryx spp 0 0.01 2.04 0.04 0 0.24 0.18 0 0 0Crustaceans 0 0.23 0.50 19.04 0.01 0.02 0.12 0.03 4.97 0.08Dicentrarchus labrax 0 0.03 1.33 1.10 0.06 0.02 0.22 0.02 2.08 0.22Dicologlossa cuneata 0 0 0.32 0.44 0.02 0 0.06 0 0.30 0.06Elasmobranchii 0.01 1.91 3.98 24.99 0.13 0.33 0.27 0.47 6.00 1.15Loliginidae 0.02 0.02 0.42 1.13 0.11 0.03 0 0.31 0 0Lophius spp 0.11 92.89 5.36 14.98 0.72 1.21 0.89 0.69 3.79 0.54Merluccius merluccius 94.02 0.30 7.28 1.17 17.48 60.52 1.58 3.22 0.44 14.70Micromesistius poutassou 0 0 0.22 0.02 0.42 0.02 0.02 0.01 0 0.74Mullus spp 0.12 0.04 5.96 0.29 0.56 0.99 0.28 59.64 0.12 1.60Octopodidae 0.01 0.01 0.81 4.22 0.08 0.19 0.06 0.52 1.92 0.71Phycis spp 0.04 0.03 0.24 0.15 0.01 0.09 0.08 0 0 0.04Pleuronectiformes 0 0.54 2.17 6.23 0.09 0.06 0.23 0.04 5.24 0.26Scomber spp 1.03 0.16 1.34 0.11 65.07 4.74 0.11 0.49 0.14 9.48Sepia officinalis 0.01 0.07 1.54 6.62 0.04 0.06 0.15 0.92 60.40 0.52Sparidae 0.20 0.03 5.31 0.67 0.09 1.07 0.21 2.68 1.12 0.94Trachurus spp 0.46 0.06 22.38 6.98 7.05 7.00 0.45 6.15 0.04 17.18Trisopterus spp 0.38 0.10 8.10 0.43 4.74 1.84 0.12 3.15 0.83 46.57Others 3.57 3.56 30.70 11.39 3.33 21.56 94.96 21.65 12.61 5.20TOTAL LANDINGS (t) 431 618 364 175 179 461 385 55 24 211EFFORT (days) 1967 2623 3979 1949 608 3098 5302 1108 331 2018

2005 Clus 1 Clus 2 Clus 3 Clus 4 Clus 5 Clus 6Beryx spp 0 0.84 0.44 0.07 0.05Crustaceans 57.34 2.14 0.03 0 0.29 0.20Dicentrarchus labra

0

x 0.61 3.58 0.05 0 0.15 0Dicologlossa cuneata 0.10 0.48 0.01 0 0.04 0Elasmobranchii 4.43 12.70 0.33 0.02 0.31 1.07Loliginidae 0.68 1.46 0.05 0.02 0.08 0.08Lophius spp 2.42 8.98 0.77 0.14 0.69 96.18Merluccius merluccius 0.18 5.43 21.22 88.33 1.30 0.04Micromesistius poutassou 0 0.06 0.14 0.01 0Mullus spp 0.03 12.65 1.40 0.13 0.43 0.03Octopodidae 0.73 1.00 0.08 0.01 0.03 0Phycis spp 0.01 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.01Pleuronectiforme

0

s 2.31 3.96 0.14 0.01 0.33 0.05Scomber spp 0.04 0.82 36.94 1.46 0.06 0.25Sepia officinalis 21.01 4.28 0.13 0 0.19 0.02Sparidae 0.82 3.81 1.53 0.30 0.28 0.02Trachurus spp 0.01 2.04 15.69 1.59 0.36 0.01Trisopterus spp 0.58 4.06 11.50 0.78 0.50 0.02Others 8.69 31.63 9.47 7.08 94.90 2.02TOTAL LANDINGS (t) 92 503 1116 1078 442 1044EFFORT (days) 1319 6594 5924 4101 5597 3451

90


Table 3.2.1.2-d. Catch profiles of the clusters obtained in the Northern Spanish coastal

trammel net fleet (GTR) in the period 2003-2005.

2003 Clus 1 Clus 2 Clus 3 Clus 4 Clus 5 Clus 6 Clus 7 Clus 8 Clus 9 Clus 10Crustaceans 8.53 6.50 3.33 0.65 13.21 0.11 1.61 1.30 79.64 0.11Dicentrarchus labrax 1.38 0.49 2.53 0.36 1.16 0.22 0.12 8.47 0.14 0.06Dicologlossa cuneata 2.98 1.63 0.84 0.20 1.24 0.05 0.27 0.26 0.39 0.00Elasmobranchii 15.61 55.60 11.38 1.69 8.19 0.24 6.41 1.99 6.35 0.33Lophius spp 11.98 8.63 13.98 1.69 2.09 0.98 69.80 1.48 1.94 0.54Merluccius merluccius 0.86 0.74 2.11 19.56 0.94 0.78 0.98 1.60 0.30 0.06Mullus spp 3.01 0.12 3.12 7.04 0.49 0.19 0.41 3.77 0.17 0.15Octopodidae 10.31 1.30 4.34 1.89 3.34 0.24 0.31 3.11 1.18 0.03Pleuronectiformes 27.18 7.82 4.53 2.50 4.44 0.91 4.23 1.18 1.33 0.18Scomber spp 0.33 0.07 0.30 2.19 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 97.37Sepia officinalis 3.66 5.77 1.62 0.95 45.25 0.12 0.56 4.47 2.70 0.11Sparidae 1.05 1.12 3.41 1.74 2.34 0.29 0.63 62.27 0.51 0.04Trachurus spp 1.22 0.06 1.27 4.44 0.11 0.23 0.09 1.26 0.02 0.27Trisopterus spp 2.08 1.56 2.21 41.34 1.00 0.23 1.07 0.90 0.32 0.12Others 9.82 8.57 45.04 13.77 16.02 95.42 13.47 7.94 5.00 0.62TOTAL LANDINGS (t) 38 52 88 30 22 85 48 6 21 40EFFORT (days) 742 861 1396 564 356 1193 642 111 427 56

2004 Clus 1 Clus 2 Clus 3 Clus 4 Clus 5 Clus 6 Clus 7 Clus 8 Clus 9 Clus 10Crustaceans 2.07 3.35 57.68 2.26 2.92 0.04 0.11 0.60 4.88 1.11Dicentrarchus labrax 0.16 1.60 1.23 1.89 1.70 0.05 0.12 0.95 2.41 1.03Dicologlossa cuneata 0.09 2.33 0.26 0.99 0.51 0.01 0.03 0.27 0.97 0.56Elasmobranchii 8.23 13.82 12.54 62.45 8.07 0.16 0.41 1.29 9.61 2.45Lophius spp 71.88 11.12 4.55 6.73 10.33 0.27 0.98 0.81 2.32 1.97Merluccius merluccius 0.49 1.77 0.55 0.62 1.17 0.08 56.70 0.41 0.95 11.46Mullus spp 0.07 1.94 0.09 0.08 4.67 0.07 2.44 0.38 0.36 4.54Octopodidae 0.31 3.03 0.73 0.47 1.47 0.04 0.16 81.55 3.23 1.76Pleuronectiformes 2.87 16.00 3.74 6.73 5.07 0.38 0.26 2.55 7.44 3.62Scomber spp 0.30 23.10 0 0.12 1.50 0.24 1.37 0.00 0.92 3.05Sepia officinalis 0.21 2.68 7.28 3.55 1.75 0.14 0.06 0.57 46.98 1.18Sparidae 0.24 2.68 0.64 1.08 3.29 0.11 0.91 0.75 1.76 2.47Trachurus spp 0.11 2.11 0.01 0.16 1.03 1.17 2.72 0.22 0.70 6.26Trisopterus spp 0.29 2.92 0.80 1.17 2.51 0.10 4.50 2.56 3.34 41.64Others 12.69 11.57 9.89 11.71 54.02 97.13 29.23 7.09 14.11 16.89TOTAL LANDINGS (t) 178 136 43 80 130 170 27 11 58 45EFFORT (days) 1912 1928 881 1042 2030 2246 367 197 897 777

2005 Clus 1 Clus 2 Clus 3 Clus 4 Clus 5 Clus 6 Clus 7 Clus 8 Clus 9 Clus 10Crustaceans 14.33 91.58 0.12 55.63 2.77 2.61 1.70 0.82 0.11 0.20Dicentrarchus labrax 1.64 0.05 0.45 0.62 1.39 4.39 0.08 0.44 0.20 0.24Dicologlossa cuneata 0.76 0.04 0.18 0.39 1.04 1.38 0.09 0.13 0.01 0.06Elasmobranchii 9.20 1.85 2.54 17.22 61.60 9.84 15.13 1.26 0.94 0.26Lophius spp 1.03 0.22 0.35 2.42 8.90 7.93 64.55 0.95 1.53 4.49Merluccius merluccius 0.25 0.06 0.49 0.33 0.43 2.58 0.81 0.25 4.08 56.08Mullus spp 0.15 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.08 0.49 0.19 0.58 26.81 0.71Octopodidae 1.39 0.20 76.18 0.72 0.32 2.07 0.06 0.27 0.25 0.26Pleuronectiformes 4.26 1.36 5.18 4.72 4.80 19.11 4.21 1.29 0.62 0.66Scomber spp 0.27 0 0 0.27 0.04 13.40 0.10 0.04 1.36 0.73Sepia officinalis 52.67 1.32 0.54 1.76 1.21 3.93 0.26 0.20 0.39 0.02Sparidae 1.39 0.22 0.16 0.97 0.91 3.87 0.22 0.84 3.03 0.49Trachurus spp 0.01 0 0 0.01 0.13 0.93 0.05 0.16 16.29 1.38Trisopterus spp 1.14 0.31 3.40 0.70 0.44 4.87 0.08 0.56 23.32 2.72Others 11.51 2.79 10.39 14.14 15.94 22.62 12.46 92.19 21.06 31.70TOTAL LANDINGS (t) 54 37 6 27 61 266 192 198 38 29EFFORT (days) 855 723 78 510 803 3663 1594 3119 691 377

91


Table 3.2.1.3-a. Logbook coverage level (in landings) for the Gulf of Cádiz fleets using mobile

gears.

Gear Class FLEET

(DCR Level 4) Coverage

(%) SURROUNDING

NETSPURSE SEINES

BOTTOM TRAWL BOTTOM OTTER TRAWL

71.0

92


Table 3.2.1.3-b. 2003-2005 catch profiles of each cluster obtained in the Gulf of Cádiz bottom

otter trawl fleet (OTB) for 2 and 4 clusters, respectively.

k2spp 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005

Citharus linguatula 2.4 3.2 1.6 0.1 0.1 3.8


Galeorhinus galeus 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2


Loligo spp. 4.9 0.0 1.6 0.2 0.0 7.2

Lophius spp. 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.2




Mullus spp. 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8


Octopus vulgaris 9.7 12.0 5.7 0.5 1.7 28.0

Ommastrephidae 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3

Other 32.2 38.9 45.7 4.6 6.7 17.4


Pagellus spp. 0.9 1.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.5

Parapenaeus longirostris 20.0 8.6 21.3 14.2 2.9 1.7

Raja spp. 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4

Sepia officinalis 8.0 10.3 1.4 0.1 0.1 15.2

Solea spp. 0.8 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7

Squilla mantis 1.9 3.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 5.4Trachurus spp. 3.5 2.4 0.8 0.2 0.3 2.4

TOTAL LANDINGS(T) 6514 3273 1675 4268 3548 3664

TOTAL EFFORT (days) 13901 13494 11067 4532 4802 15895

Clus-1 Clus-2

k4spp 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005

Citharus linguatula 3.2 3.4 2.9 2.4 3.9 2.8 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.2

Dicologoglosa cuneata 0.2 1.3 0.8 2.1 2.6 0.5 2.2 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 7.0

Galeorhinus galeus 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4

Lithognatus mormyrus 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8

Loligo spp. 1.1 0.0 2.5 9.8 0.0 8.3 0.9 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 4.9

Lophius spp. 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2

Melicertus kerathurus 0.6 2.0 0.9 5.1 4.4 1.1 3.6 1.6 0.7 0.7 0.2 9.3

Merluccius merluccius 13.0 20.6 14.6 6.5 4.8 3.8 4.5 2.0 2.7 5.1 5.0 4.2

Micromesistius poutassou 2.4 1.5 4.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.5 74.1 81.6 3.8

Mullus spp. 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7

Nephrops norvegicus 2.7 0.8 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 1.8 0.8 1.7

Octopus vulgaris 6.9 4.1 7.5 15.4 20.6 42.2 2.4 2.2 0.9 0.4 1.7 5.7

Ommastrephidae 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3

Other 17.6 38.2 34.6 24.7 25.8 16.5 71.8 86.2 85.7 4.6 6.9 19.8

Pagellus bogaraveo 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3

Pagellus spp. 0.0 1.4 0.6 1.7 2.5 1.5 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.5

Parapenaeus longirostris 49.2 19.8 24.2 2.1 2.0 1.2 6.8 3.7 5.1 12.5 2.9 0.8

Raja spp. 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3

Sepia officinalis 1.1 1.4 1.9 16.0 19.2 16.2 3.0 1.6 1.3 0.1 0.1 14.7

Solea spp. 0.1 1.0 0.2 1.5 1.2 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

Squilla mantis 0.8 1.6 0.3 3.6 5.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 16.1Trachurus spp. 0.6 1.6 1.4 7.5 3.6 2.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 2.4

TOTAL LANDINGS(T) 1981 1190 1575 3054 1677 2388 1564 393 284 4184 3561 1091

TOTAL EFFORT (days) 5207 4833 9789 6019 6702 9495 2891 1936 2046 4316 4825 5632

Clus-1 Clus-2 Clus-3 Clus-4

93


Table 3.2.1.3-c. Catch profiles of the two trip types identified in the Gulf of Cádiz purse seine

(PS) fleet for the period 2003-2005.

2003 2004 2005

Spp. PS-ANE PS-PIL PS-ANE PS-PIL PS-ANE PS-PIL

Engraulis encrasicolus 83.9 5.3 89.9 5.8 85.3 3.7

Scomber spp. 6.8 2.8 3.0 4.9 4.7 1.8


Sardina pilchardus 5.7 90.9 6.0 87.6 5.0 93.8

Other 2.6 0.3 1.1 0.9 2.5 0.2

Trachurus spp. 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.8 0.6 0.4

TOTAL LANDINGS (t) 5645 9040 5390 10762 4806 7859

TOTAL EFFORT (days) 3296 4359 3582 6088 3319 5019

Table 3.2.1.4-a. Logbook coverage level (in landings) for the Gulf of Cádiz fleets using fixed

gears.

Gear Group Fleet

(level 4) Coverage

(%) SET GILLNETS NETSTRAMMEL NETS

LONGLINES SET LONGLINE

TRAPS TRAPS

21.3

94


Table 3.2.1.4-b. 2003-2005 catch profiles of the three trip types obtained in the Gulf of Cádiz

set long line fleet (LLS): LLS-SBR: trips targeting blackspot seabream; LLS-SFS: trips targeting

silver scabbardfish; LLS-mixed: trips with catches of pink dentex, forkbeards, conger, and others

species.

2003 2004 2005

spp.LLS-

mixedLLS-SBR C3

LLS-mixed

LLS-SBR

LLS-SFS

LLS-mixed

LLS-SBR

LLS-SFS

Argyrosomus regius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0

Batoideo 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Beryx decadaptylus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.2 0.0

Brama brama 1.4 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.6 0.0

Conger conger 17.9 1.6 0.8 11.8 1.1 0.0 2.8 0.1 0.0

Dentex dentex 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0

Dentex gibbosus 28.2 0.6 0.0 32.2 1.6 0.0 37.5 0.2 0.0

Diplodus spp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0

Galeorhinus galeus 2.5 1.5 0.0 3.8 0.2 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0

H.dactylopterus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.3 0.0 1.1 0.2 0.0

Isurus oxirhinchus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0

Lepidopus caudatus 3.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 99.9 0.0 0.1 99.9

Langosta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Lophius spp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Muraena helena 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0

Octopus vulgaris 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0

OTHERS 14.3 4.0 0.0 13.2 4.1 0.0 10.8 0.6 0.0Plectorhinchus mediterraneus 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0

Pagellus bogaraveo 4.1 83.2 0.0 4.3 86.8 0.1 5.9 95.4 0.0

Pagellus spp 0.7 0.0 95.7 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Phycis spp 10.5 0.5 0.0 11.3 0.5 0.0 19.8 0.3 0.0

Polyprion americanus 3.8 2.9 3.5 1.2 1.9 0.0 0.4 1.4 0.0

Raya spp 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0

Scorpaena spp 6.1 2.4 0.0 3.0 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0

Seriola spp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0

Sparus aurata 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0

Squalidae 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.1

Thunnus spp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Trachurus spp 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.0

Trachynotus ovatus 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0

Umbrina spp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

Xiphia gladius 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0

TOTAL LANDINGS (t) 21.0 19.8 1.0 173.5 15.3 29.8 33.7 22.9 24.8

Effort (days) 134 227 24 155 314 477 91 307 118

95

Sectio

n 3

IB

ERM

IX rep

ort

Tab

le 3

.2.1

.4-c. 2

003-2

005 catch

pro

files of th

e six trip typ

es obtain

ed in

the G

ulf o

f Cád

iz set gilln

et fleet (GN

S) fo

r the p

eriod 2

003-2

005.

20

03

20

04

20

05

Sp

p.

C1

C

2

C3

C

4

C5

C

6

C1

C

2

C3

C

4

C5

C

6

C1

C

2

C3

C

4

C5

C

6

Arg

yroso

mus reg

ius

48

.90.2

2.6

0.5

0.2

3.9

54

.00.2

0.6

0.4

6.4

0.2

0.3

1.4

0.2

76

.0D

entex g

ibbosu

s 1

0.0

0.7

1.9

11

.13.6

0.1

0.2

1.7

Dicen

trarchus lab

rax 1.3

1.3

1.6

0.6

2.2

0.4

0.0

0.4

0.6

0.2

0.3

0.1

0.0

0.2

Dico

logoglo

sa cuneata

0.2

0.6

2.0

0.2

73

.01.2

0.6

67

.34.0

0.4

1.4

0.1

0.6

0.0

78

.40.0

Dip

lodus sp

p.

2.8

0.3

4.0

0.2

0.2

4.3

2.9

0.0

0.0

1.5

0.2

0.1

0.3

0.2

0.0

1.8

Galeo

rhin

us g

aleu

s 2.9

0.7

3.8

0.2

3.8

2.2

0.0

1.1

0.7

3.6

0.1

0.7

0.4

0.1

1.9

Hom

arus g

amm

arus

0.3

0.4

0.2

0.6

0.2

0.1

Lithognatu

s morm

yrus

0.9

0.2

1

0.3

0.3

0.3

5.1

1.0

0.7

0.2

5.6

0.0

0.1

0.5

0.2

Melicertu

s kerath

uru

s 0.5

4.3

0.2

7.9

5.2

0.9

10.6

2.5

0.7

9.3

0.6

1.1

6.1

0.2

Merlu

ccius m

erlucciu

s 1.1

1.7

1

5.9

0.3

3.6

16

.81.0

0.2

0.7

1.8

1.0

Micro

mesistiu

s poutasso

u

0.4

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.7

1.1

Mullu

s surm

uletu

s 0.4

0.5

0.9

0.1

0.1

0.5

0.6

0.2

Octo

pus vu

lgaris

0.6

0.9

97

.83.2

0.1

1.0

0.2

2.0

0.1

1.9

94

.70.1

0.5

Pag

ellus b

ogaraveo

0.4

1.0

0.5

Pagellu

s spp.

2.0

0.4

1

7.5

0.2

0.3

14

.02.1

0.1

0.5

0.4

0.2

13

.00.5

0.4

0.4

0.0

1.6

Pagru

s aurig

a 1.2

1.0

P. M

editerran

eus

16

.16.5

0.3

0.2

4.7

14

.60.2

0.3

0.1

11.3

0.4

0.1

6.1

Pom

ato

mus saltato

r 1.4

1.1

4.6

0.3

1.3

0.9

0.1

0.8

0.1

5.6

0.1

0.5

Raja sp

p.

0.6

0.8

0.8

0.2

0.8

1.0

1.7

0.1

1.3

0.4

0.1

0.0

1.1

Sco

mber sp

p.

0.6

1.1

0.6

0.1

Sep

ia officin

alis

0.5

3

2.9

2.4

0.2

3.8

1.8

0.4

0.3

3.1

50

.12.7

3.4

0.3

41

.90.8

3.4

0.4

Solea sp

p.

0.6

5

4.5

0.8

1.9

0.5

1.2

0.9

0.7

1.8

25

.98

8.7

0.9

0.5

45

.70.5

0.6

0.6

Sparu

s aura

ta

1.9

1.0

1.9

1.9

0.1

1.7

0.3

0.1

0.0

1.8

Squilla m

antis

1.4

2.3

0.6

4.7

0.3

0.3

0.8

0.4

0.0

5.1

Torp

edo sp

p.

1.1

0.9

0.1

0.2

1.5

0.2

Trach

uru

s spp.

0.3

1.7

1.1

0.2

1.2

0.1

0.1

Trach

ynotu

s ovatu

s 0.4

0.0

0.1

0.6

Um

brin

a spp.

0.4

0.9

1.4

0.4

0.0

0.3

1.0

0.0

0.5

OTH

ER

6.7

3.5

12.1

95

.56.5

1.4

17.0

3.6

96.3

10.4

4.1

3.0

16.9

97.0

4.1

0.6

5.5

1.3

TO

TA

L L

AN

DIN

GS

(t) 41.3

16.9

77.9

12.3

16.3

5.8

82.9

35.3

23.6

8.6

10.0

7.2

80.3

44.3

19.7

30.8

15.3

18.6

EFFO

RT (d

ays)

507

396

771

323

301

84

902

415

472

148

215

228

905

679

319

230

241

215

96


Table 3.2.1.4-d. 2003-2005 catch profiles of the clusters obtained in the Gulf of Cádiz trammel

net fleet (GTR).

2003 2004 2005

spp. C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 C3 C4 C1 C2

Argyrosomus regius 3.9 0.4 0.1 0.6 3.6 4.7 1.8

Dentex gibbosus 1.2 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.3 1.3

Dicentrarchus labrax 1.6 0.3


Diplodus spp. 8.5 0.6 0.7 1.1 6.8 7.1 4.2

Galeorhinus galeus 0.3 0.3

Homarus gammarus 0.2 0.2

Lepidopus caudatus 2.2 0.8

Lithognatus mormyrus 13.6 2.8 1.0 1.3 2.5 39.9 5.3

Lophius spp. 0.9 2.6 0.7 0.5

Melicertus kerathurus 0.3 7.2 2.1 6.4 0.5 100

Merluccius merluccius 0.8 12.9 9.2 2.6

Mullus surmuletus 1.6 0.2 4.7

Octopus vulgaris 3.7 3.6 2.3 0.3 5.3 2.0 5.2

OTHERS 18.7 19.4 28.9 60.1 17.4 15.3 22.2

P. mediterraneus 2.2 0.5 0.8 0.3 2.0 2.7 4.7


Pagellus spp. 21.1 2.3 0.4 1.5 11.2 14.9 9.7

Phycis spp. 0.5

Pomatomus saltator 1.9 0.2 5.4 0.2

Raja spp. 4.3 28.0 2.0 0.8 12.9 2.6 7.2

Scomber sp 0.2

Sepia officinalis 2.4 31.7 1.4 1.3 12.5 1.0 19.5

Solea spp. 1.2 3.2 36.1 5.3 7.7 0.7 5.4

Sparus aurata 1.3 0.3 0.4 0.9

Squilla mantis 0.2 0.3

Torpedo spp. 1.2 3.9 1.1 2.7 0.5 1.6

Trachurus spp. 1.0 0.4 0.2 1.1

Trisopterus spp. 0.5

Umbrina spp. 4.4 1.7 0.4 0.8 2.6 1.8 3.5

TOTAL LANDINGS (t) 40.6 10.6 16.5 13.1 47.5 17.1 0.8 43.1 0.7

EFFORT (days) 159 48 54 101 256 115 11 262.0 24

97


Table 3.2.1.4-e. 2003-2005 catch profiles of the clusters obtained in the Gulf of Cádiz trap fleet

(FPO) by year.

2003 2004 2005

spp. C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 C3 C4 C1 C2 C3

Brama brama 0.0 0.1 31.4 0.1 0.0 43.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Citharus linguatula 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3

Conger conger 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0

Dentex gibbosus 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0

Diplodus spp. 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 44.4 0.0 5.8 0.0

Homarus gammarus 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

L. mormyrus 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0

Muraena helena 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0

Octopus vulgaris 24.2 99.8 68.6 99.9 50.4 56.8 0.0 99.9 13.7 5.2

OTHER 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 89.5

Pagellus bogaraveo 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.9 0.0

Pagellus spp. 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 1.1 0.0 S. cantharus 36.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.4 0.0 Sepia officinalis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 4.0Sparus aurata 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 Umbrina spp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL LANDINGS (t) 32.6 1.7 3.2 33.8 0.7 7.3 0.05 222.3 6.7 1.9 EFFORT (days) 148 11 22 317 5 40 1 997 63 12

98


Table 3.2.2.2-a. Number of vessels and landings of the Portuguese multi-gear fleet by year.

Year Number vessels

Numberdaily

landings

Number species (95%)

2003 351 40 537 562004 341 37 547 552005 331 39 670 61

Table 3.2.2.2-b. Portuguese Multi-gear fleet: fishing trip types or clusters identified by year.

Year Cluster number/ Fishing trip type Si. coef. N. vessels N. trips 1 Octopus vulgaris 0.83 171 79292 Mixed species 0.19 154 26213 Merluccius merluccius 0.37 94 27124 Mixed species -0.13 266 53675 Octopus spp. & other 0.13 179 55626 Raja spp. & other 0.22 172 32587 Solea spp. & other 0.35 132 23248 Lophius spp. & other 0.44 100 17979 Aphanopus carbo 0.82 16 181310 Other 0.62 136 101711 Trisopterus luscus & other 0.34 133 280912 Chamelea gallina 0.16 5 70113 Spisula solida 1.00 13 94214 Microchirus spp. & other 0.67 35 90415 Solenidae 0.00 5 478

2003

16 Callista chione 0.00 4 3031 Octopus vulgaris & other -0.02 181 47072 Merluccius merluccius & other 0.74 99 26683 Mixed species -0.07 272 64534 Conger conger & other 0.21 81 11875 Solea spp. & other 0.40 132 37596 Octopus vulgaris 0.76 167 66637 Sepia officinalis & other 0.51 56 6808 Microchirus spp. & other 0.54 43 11579 Aphanopus carbo 0.00 18 168510 Other species 0.82 135 78211 Zeus faber & other 0.50 64 74412 Lophius spp. & other 0.50 112 202513 Pagellus acarne & other 0.43 51 94614 Trisopterus luscus & other 0.40 110 201115 Spisula solida 0.80 12 137216 Chamelea gallina 0.00 3 23517 Solenidae 1.00 6 427

2004

18 Solea lascaris & Solea spp. 0.00 29 461 Merluccius merluccius & other 0.42 108 31062 Mixed species -0.14 287 99503 Mixed species -0.08 177 33684 Octopus vulgaris & other 0.25 152 41155 Raja spp. & other 0.34 146 16606 Solea spp. & other 0.43 118 29337 Aphanopus carbo 0.93 18 17718 Other species 0.59 110 7299 Octopus vulgaris 0.90 156 627410 Lophius spp. & other 0.54 104 158511 Trisopterus luscus & other 0.49 113 249612 Solenidae 1.00 6 46513 Chamelea gallina 1.00 5 432

2005

14 Spisula solida 1.00 14 786

99

Sectio

n 3

IB

ERM

IX rep

ort

Fig

ure

3.2

.1.1

-a. S

ilhouette co

efficients fo

r 2 to

14 clu

sters, and silh

ouette p

lots fo

r the h

ighest S

C o

btain

ed fo

r the N

orth

ern S

pan

ish co

astal

botto

m o

tter trawl fleet (O

TB) b

y year analyzed

.

2

46

81

01

21

4

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

OT

B 2

00

3

Nº C

luste

r

ASW

24

68

10

12

14

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

OT

B 2

00

4

Nº C

luste

r

ASW

24

68

10

12

14

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

OT

B 2

00

5

Nº C

luste

r

ASW

Silh

ouette

wid

th s

i

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silo

uh

ette

OT

B 2

00

3

Ave

rag

e s

ilhoue

tte w

idth

: 0.5

n =

10

03

clu

ste

rsC

j

j : nj | a

vei

Cj

si

1 : 4

4 | 0

.31

2 : 4

2 | 0

.67

3 : 1

4 | 0

.58

Silh

oue

tte w

idth

si

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silo

uh

ette

OT

B 2

00

4

Ave

rag

e s

ilho

ue

tte w

idth

: 0.4

9

n =

10

04

clu

ste

rsC

j

j : nj | a

vei

Cj

si

1 : 3

2 | 0

.25

2 : 1

7 | 0

.47

3 : 1

5 | 0

.57

4 : 3

6 | 0

.67

Silh

oue

tte w

idth

si

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silo

uh

ette

OT

B 2

00

5

Ave

rag

e s

ilho

ue

tte w

idth

: 0.5

4

n =

10

03

clu

ste

rsC

j

j : nj | a

vei

Cj

si

1 : 3

9 | 0

.38

2 : 2

2 | 0

.64

3 : 3

9 | 0

.64

100


Figure 3.2.1.1-b. Catch profiles of the clusters obtained in the Northern Spanish coastal

bottom otter trawl (OTB) fleet by year analyzed.

2003 OTB catch profiles

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

cluster 1 cluster 2 cluster 3

trip types

perc

enta

ge

others

pout

horse mackerel

mackerel

nephrops

blue whiting

hake

monk

megrim

illex

eledone

2004 OTB catchprofile

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

cluster 1 cluster 2 cluster 3 cluster 4

trip type

perc

enta

ge

others

pout

horse mackerel

mackerel

nephrops

blue whiting

hake

monk

megrim

illex

eledone

2005 OTB catch profiles

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

cluster 1 cluster 2 cluster 3

trip type

pe

rce

nta

ge

others

pout

horse mackerel

mackerel

nephrops

blue whiting

hake

monk

megrim

illex

eledone

101


Figure 3.2.1.1-c. Monthly analysis of the four trip types of the Northern Spanish coastal

bottom otter trawl fleet (OTB) by year. (OTB-HOM: trips targeting horse mackerel; OTB-

MAC: trips targeting mackerel, OTB-WHB: trips targeting blue whiting; OTB-mixed: trips

targeting a mixed of demersal species).

2003 OTB seasonality

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

month

nº

of tr

ips

OTB-MAC

OTB-HOM

OTB-WHB

OTB-mixed


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

months

nº

od trips

OTB-MAC

TB-HOM

OTB-WHB

OTB-mixed


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

months

nº

of tr

ips

OTB-MAC

OTB-HOM

OTB-WHB

OTB-mixed

102

Figure 3.2.1.1-d. Silhouette plot of the highest SC clustering obtained by the CLARA

analysis of the technical features of the Northern Spanish coastal bottom otter trawl fleet

(OTB).


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Silhouette width

ouette width : 0.59Average silh

103

Fig

ure

3.2

.1.1

-e. S

ilhou

ette coefficien

ts (SC) fro

m 2

to 1

4 clu

sters, and silh

ouette p

lots fo

r the h

ighest S

C o

btain

ed in

the N

orth

ern S

pan

ish

coastal b

otto

m p

air trawl fleet (PT

B) b

y year analyzed

.

Silh

ouette

wid

th s

i

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

PT

B 2

00

3 S

iloh

ue

tte p

lot

Ave

rag

e s

ilhoue

tte w

idth

: 0.8

3

n =

10

02

clu

ste

rsC

j

j : nj | a

vei

Cj

si

1 : 9

5 | 0

.84

2 : 5

| 0.5

3

Silh

oue

tte w

idth

si

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

PT

B 2

00

4 S

iloh

ue

tte p

lot

Ave

rag

e s

ilho

ue

tte w

idth

: 0.7

5

n =

10

02

clu

ste

rsC

j

j : nj | a

vei

Cj

si

1 : 9

0 | 0

.79

2 : 1

0 | 0

.38

Silh

oue

tte w

idth

si

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

PT

B 2

00

5 S

iloh

ue

tte p

lot

Ave

rag

e s

ilho

ue

tte w

idth

: 0.7

4

n =

10

02

clu

ste

rsC

j

j : nj | a

vei

Cj

si

1 : 8

6 | 0

.81

2 : 1

4 | 0

.32

24

68

10

12

14

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

PT

B 2

00

3

nº c

luste

r

ASW

24

68

10

12

14

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

PT

B 2

00

4

nº c

luste

r

ASW

24

68

10

12

14

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

PT

B 2

00

5

nº c

luste

r

ASW

IBERM

IX rep

ort

Sectio

n 3

104


Figure 3.2.1.1-f. Catch profiles of the two clusters obtained in the Northern Spanish coastal

bottom pair trawl fleet (PTB) by year.

2003 PTB catch profiles

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

cluster 1 cluster 2

others

horse mackerel

mackerel

blue whiting

hake

monk

illex


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

cluster 1 cluster 2

others

horse mackerel

mackerel

blue whiting

hake

monk

illex


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

cluster 1 cluster 2

others

horse mackerel

mackerel

blue whiting

hake

monk

illex

105


Figure 3.2.1.1-g. Seasonality for both the trip types obtained in the Northern Spanish

coastal bottom pair trawl fleet (PTB) by year. (“PTB-WHB”: trips targeting mainly blue

whiting; and “PTB-MAC”: trips targeting mainly mackerel).

2003 PTB seasonality

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

month

nº

of tr

ips

PTB-MAC

PTB-WHB


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

month

nº

of tr

ips

PTB-MAC

PTB-WHB


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

month

nº

of tr

ips

PTB-MAC

PTB-WHB

106

Figure 3.2.1.1-h. Silhouette plot of the highest SC clustering obtained by the CLARA

analysis of the technical features of the Northern Spanish coastal pair bottom trawl fleet

(PTB).


0.

Average silhouette w

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Silhouette width

idth : 0.72

107

Fig

ure

3.2

.1.1

-i. Silh

ouette co

efficients (S

C) fo

r 2 to

10 clu

sters, and silh

ouette p

lots fo

r the h

ighest S

C o

btain

ed fo

r the N

orth

ern S

pan

ish coastal

purse sein

e fleet (PS) b

y year analyzed

.

Silh

oue

tte w

idth

si

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ou

ette

plo

t of c

lara

(x =

p, k

= k

.be

st)

Ave

rag

e s

ilho

ue

tte w

idth

: 0.8

6

n =

56

8clu

ste

rsC

j

j : nj | a

vei

Cj

si

1 : 2

4 | 0

.93

2 : 1

2 | 0

.85

3 : 3

| 0.4

7

4 : 3

| 1.0

0

5 : 2

| 0.6

4

6 : 3

| 1.0

0

7 : 2

| 1.0

0

8 : 7

| 0.6

7

Silh

oue

tte w

idth

si

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ou

ette

plo

t of c

lara

(x =

p, k

= k

.be

st)

Ave

rag

e s

ilho

ue

tte w

idth

: 0.8

8

n =

54

7clu

ste

rsC

j

j : nj | a

vei

Cj

si

1 : 2

| 1.0

0

2 : 1

4 | 1

.00

3 : 4

| -0.1

0

4 : 2

3 | 0

.92

5 : 2

| 1.0

0

6 : 7

| 0.9

6

7 : 2

| 1.0

0

Silh

oue

tte w

idth

si

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ou

ette

plo

t of c

lara

(x =

p, k

= k

.be

st)

Ave

rag

e s

ilho

ue

tte w

idth

: 0.9

1

n =

56

8clu

ste

rsC

j

j : nj | a

vei

Cj

si

1 : 2

5 | 0

.96

2 : 2

| 1.0

0

3 : 3

| 0.8

8

4 : 3

| 1.0

0

5 : 1

7 | 0

.77

6 : 2

| 0.9

6

7 : 2

| 1.0

0

8 : 2

| 1.0

0

AS

W P

UR

SE S

EINE 2003

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

12

34

56

78

910

AS

W P

UR

SE

SE

INE

20

04

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9 1

12

34

56

78

910

AS

W P

UR

SE S

EINE 2005

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9 1

12

34

56

78

910

20

03

20

04

2

00

5

IBERM

IX rep

ort

Sectio

n 3

108


Figure 3.2.1.1-j. Bar plots showing the catch profiles of the clusters obtained in the

Northern Spanish coastal purse seine fleet (PS) by year.

2003 PS catch profiles

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Clus 1 Clus 2 Clus 3 Clus 4 Clus 5 Clus 6 Clus 7 Clus 8

trip types

perc

en

tag

e

Others

Tunidos

Trachurus spp

Sparidae

Scomberesox saurus

Scomber scombrus

Scomber japonicus

Sardina pilchardus

Engraulis encrasicolus

Boops boops

Belone belone


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Clus 1 Clus 2 Clus 3 Clus 4 Clus 5 Clus 6 Clus 7

trip types

perc

en

tag

e

Others

Tunidos

Trachurus spp

Sparidae

Scomberesox saurus

Scomber scombrus

Scomber japonicus

Sardina pilchardus


Boops boops

Belone belone


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


trip types

perc

en

tag

e

Others

Tunidos

Trachurus spp

Sparidae

Scomberesox saurus

Scomber scombrus

Scomber japonicus

Sardina pilchardus


Boops boops

Belone belone

109


Figure 3.2.1.1-k. Bar plots showing the seasonality for the trip types selected in the

Northern Spanish coastal purse seine fleet (PS) by year.

2003 PS seasonality

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

month

nu

mb

er

of

trip

s

PS-mixed

PS-SBX

PS-PIL

PS-JAX

PS-ANE

2004 PS seasonality

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

month

nu

mb

er

of

trip

s PS-mixed

PS-SBX

PS-PIL

PS-JAX

PS-MAC

PS-ANE

2005 PS seasonality

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

month

nu

mb

er

of

trip

s

PS-mixed

PS-SBX

PS-PIL

PS-JAX

PS-MAC

110


Figure 3.2.1.1-l. Silhouette plot of the highest SC clustering obtained by the CLARA

analysis of the technical features of the Northern Spanish coastal purse seine fleet (PS).

102572172051821603171012012341358230147891671443527020929991851563422136018740374236538628118812133129351361387342192274215393092675133316742882861348118029232837016180110364632613273323222771963831463152634426617212028241502591401371911853832132548276324206157118610931030765466330233133681747236914815118322415475254733621261703521931423455523029631810324124713971171082712758735646338306171164636535425313963592283632182721363357202985238116332921290219902224314132632011237311843210123264192226934137824629328426238100367235162372208197199287371813012131692553394513830229782692231615153422602511337725631129559233220250155186382168283159178212784925811133710511694319336621951503403802395825292424531421416533316710176104130194385143190173124107303384257119184322259534930092244240129334141982163127837914928537168346289175237122323353973481860189376166304998426229817377229532802481152031145420434735514588249763583669370202579362731773122322652111132912272312073506130864158294305122268334428213134310617971279200242471271285615213233537512526827

Silhouette width si

-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Silhouette plot of pam(x = b, k = k.best)

Average silhouette width : 0.59

n = 387 2 clusters Cj

j : nj | avei Cj si

1 : 133 | 0.46

2 : 254 | 0.65

111


Figure 3.2.1.1-m. Bar plots showing the seasonality of the PS trip types and CPUEs for the

“big” (PSB) and “small” (PSS) fleet segments of the Northern Spanish coastal purse seine

fleet (PS) by year.

2004 PSB seasonality

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

months

nº

of

trip

s

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

CP

UE

PS-mixed

PS-SBX

PS-PIL

PS-JAX

PS-MAC

PS-ANE

CPUE

2004 PSS seasonality

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

months

nº

of

trip

s

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

CP

UE

PS-mixed

PS-SBX

PS-PIL

PS-JAX

PS-MAC

PS-ANE

CPUE


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

months

nº

of

trip

s

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

CP

UE

PS-mixed

PS-SBX

PS-PIL

PS-JAX

PS-MAC

CPUE


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

months

nº

of

trip

s

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

CP

UE

PS-mixed

PS-SBX

PS-PIL

PS-JAX

PS-MAC

CPUE


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

months

nº

of

trip

s

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

CP

UE

PS-mixed

PS-SBX

PS-PIL

PS-JAX

PS-ANE

CPUE


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

months

nº

of

trip

s

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

CP

UE

PS-mixed

PS-SBX

PS-PIL

PS-JAX

PS-ANE

CPUE

112

Fig

ure

3.2

.1.2

-a.

Silh

ouet

te c

oef

fici

ents

(SC)

for

2 t

o 1

0 c

lust

ers,

and s

ilhouet

te p

lots

for

the

hig

hes

t SC o

bta

ined

for

the

Nort

her

n S

pan

ish

coas

tal se

t lo

ng lin

e flee

t (L

LS)

by

year

.

AS

W L

ON

G L

INE

20

03

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

12

34

56

78

910

AS

W L

ON

G L

INE

20

04

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

12

34

56

78

910

AS

W L

ON

G L

INE

20

05

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

12

34

56

78

910

Silh

oue

tte

wid

th s

i

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ou

ett

e p

lot

of

cla

ra(x

= p

, k

= k

.be

st)

Ave

rag

e s

ilho

ue

tte

wid

th : 0

.63

n =

56

8clu

ste

rsC

j

j : n

j | a

vei

Cj

si

1 : 9

|

0.8

4

2 : 1

0 |

0.1

2

3 : 9

|

0.6

3

4 : 7

|

0.5

3

5 : 9

|

0.9

0

6 : 3

|

1.0

0

7 : 5

|

0.5

0

8 : 4

|

0.9

3

S

ilho

ue

tte

wid

th s

i

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ou

ett

e p

lot

of

cla

ra(x

= p

, k

= k

.be

st)

Ave

rag

e s

ilho

ue

tte

wid

th : 0

.65

n =

52

6clu

ste

rsC

j

j : n

j | a

vei

Cj

si

1 : 1

1 |

0.8

1

2 : 5

|

0.7

6

3 : 1

2 |

0.0

5

4 : 5

|

0.7

8

5 : 1

0 |

0.8

0

6 : 9

|

0.9

6

Silh

oue

tte

wid

th s

i

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ou

ett

e p

lot

of

cla

ra(x

= p

, k

= k

.be

st)

Ave

rag

e s

ilho

ue

tte

wid

th : 0

.71

n =

54

7clu

ste

rsC

j

j : n

j | a

vei

Cj

si

1 : 8

|

0.7

2

2 : 1

0 |

0.0

9

3 : 3

|

1.0

0

4 : 5

|

0.8

3

5 : 4

|

1.0

0

6 : 1

2 |

0.8

8

7 : 1

2 |

0.8

2

20

03

2

00

4

20

05

RM

IX r

eport

Sec

tion 3

IB

E

113


Figure 3.2.1.2-b. Bar plots showing the catch profiles of the clusters obtained in the

Northern Spanish coastal set long line fleet (LLS) by year.

2003 LLS catch profiles

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


trip types

perc

en

tag

e

Others

Trisopterus spp

Trachurus spp

Sparidae

Scomber scombrus

Polyprion americanus

Pollachius spp

Phycis spp

Micromesistius poutassou

Merluccius merluccius

Elasmobranchii

Dicentrarchus labrax

Conger conger

Brama brama

Beryx spp

Belone belone


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Clus 1 Clus 2 Clus 3 Clus 4 Clus 5 Clus 6

trip types

perc

en

tag

e

Others

Trisopterus spp

Trachurus spp

Sparidae

Scomber scombrus


Pollachius spp

Phycis spp



Elasmobranchii


Conger conger

Brama brama

Beryx spp

Belone belone


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Clus 1 Clus 2 Clus 3 Clus 4 Clus 5 Clus 6 Clus 7

trip types

perc

en

tag

e

Others

Trisopterus spp

Trachurus spp

Sparidae

Scomber scombrus


Pollachius spp

Phycis spp



Elasmobranchii


Conger conger

Brama brama

Beryx spp

Belone belone

114


Figure 3.2.1.2-c. Bar plots showing the seasonality for the trip types selected in the

Northern Spanish coastal set longline fleet (LLS) by year. (LLS-COE: trips targeting conger;

LLS-HKE: trips targeting hake; LLS-POL: trips targeting pollacks; LLS-BSS: trips targeting

seabass; LLS-mixed: trips with a mixed species catch).

2003 LLS seasonality

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

month

nu

mb

er

of

trip

s

SLL-POL

SLL-mixed

SLL-HKE

SLL-COE

SLL-BSS


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

month

nu

mb

er

of

trip

s

LLS-POL

LLS-mixed

LLS-HKE

LLS-COE

LLS-BSS


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

month

nu

mb

er

of

trip

s

LLS-POL

LLS-mixed

LLS-HKE

LLS-COE

LLS-BSS

115

Figure 3.2.1.2-d. Silhouette plots of the highest SC clusters obtained by the CLARA analysis

of the technical features of the Northern Spanish coastal set long line fleet (LLS).


4619423822201170121501181542848551791631912131037221618712316069882361842235812925761534166231744313321233157145261971249109173126575318814120419015144911201432051569410217710719240621485477239247234176989242781671306124515520316519618611475171127119601131153631248513618917821516817514047136810415322141210134961822202329172805222266117207872066132217863216214610838293139147112185121161433218101164248226512142081991790102314250200492198227111193891971659202438313824221115225

14995198139169158128932441051169911457641251358222922518320967110701312411481183573184371442022462301002779561222242281591802402356513724195174363097237106212181

Silhouette width si

-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0




j : nj | avei Cj si

1 : 202 | 0.75

2 : 47 | 0.36

116

Fig

ure

3.2

.1.2

-e.

Silh

ouet

te c

oef

fici

ents

(SC)

for

2 t

o 1

0 c

lust

ers,

and s

ilhouet

te p

lots

for

the

hig

hes

t SC o

bta

ined

for

the

Nort

her

n S

pan

ish

coas

tal se

t gill

net

fle

et (

GN

S)

by

year

.

AS

W S

ET

GIL

LN

ET

20

03

0

0.0

5

0.1

0.1

5

0.2

0.2

5

0.3

0.3

5

0.4

0.4

5

0.5

12

34

56

78

910

ASW

SE

T G

ILLN

ET

2004

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

12

34

56

78

910

AS

W S

ET

GIL

LN

ET

20

05

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

12

34

56

78

910

Silh

oue

tte

wid

th s

i

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ou

ett

e p

lot

of

cla

ra(x

= p

, k

= k

.be

st)

Ave

rag

e s

ilho

ue

tte

wid

th : 0

.46

n =

60

10

clu

ste

rsC

j

j : n

j | a

vei

Cj

si

1 : 1

1 |

0.0

6

2 : 8

|

0.4

5

3 : 4

|

0.4

0

4 : 8

|

0.7

3

5 : 5

|

0.1

1

6 : 4

|

0.9

6

7 : 3

|

0.5

5

8 : 2

|

0.3

5

9 : 8

|

0.7

5

10

: 7

|

0.4

9

Silh

oue

tte

wid

th s

i

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ou

ett

e p

lot

of

cla

ra(x

= p

, k

= k

.be

st)

Ave

rag

e s

ilho

ue

tte

wid

th : 0

.53

n =

60

10

clu

ste

rsC

j

j : n

j | a

vei

Cj

si

1 : 6

|

0.7

8

2 : 3

|

1.0

0

3 : 1

1 |

-0.0

2

4 : 3

|

0.3

0

5 : 3

|

0.5

6

6 : 8

|

0.5

7

7 : 1

1 |

0.8

8

8 : 4

|

0.4

8

9 : 5

|

0.6

8

10

: 6

|

0.3

7

Silh

oue

tte

wid

th s

i

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ou

ett

e p

lot

of

cla

ra(x

= p

, k

= k

.be

st)

Ave

rag

e s

ilho

ue

tte

wid

th : 0

.59

n =

52

6clu

ste

rsC

j

j : n

j | a

vei

Cj

si

1 : 4

|

0.4

5

2 : 1

2 |

0.1

0

3 : 7

|

0.1

8

4 : 9

|

0.6

9

5 : 1

3 |

1.0

0

6 : 7

|

1.0

0

2

00

3

2

00

4

2

00

5

RM

IX r

eport

Sec

tion 3

IB

E

117


Figure 3.2.1.2-f. Bar plots showing the catch profiles of the clusters obtained in the

Northern Spanish coastal set gillnet fleet (GNS) by year.

2003 GNS catch profiles

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Clus 1 Clus 2 Clus 3 Clus 4 Clus 5 Clus 6 Clus 7 Clus 8 Clus 9 Clus 10

trip types

perc

en

tag

e

Others

Trisopterus spp

Trachurus spp

Sparidae

Sepia officinalis

Scomber spp

Pleuronectiformes

Phycis spp

Octopodidae

Mullus spp



Lophius spp

Loliginidae

Elasmobranchii

Dicologlossa cuneata


Crustaceans

Beryx spp


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


trip types

perc

en

tag

e

Others

Trisopterus spp

Trachurus spp

Sparidae

Sepia officinalis

Scomber spp

Pleuronectiformes

Phycis spp

Octopodidae

Mullus spp



Lophius spp

Loliginidae

Elasmobranchii



Crustaceans

Beryx spp


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Clus 1 Clus 2 Clus 3 Clus 4 Clus 5 Clus 6

trip types

perc

en

tag

e

Others

Trisopterus spp

Trachurus spp

Sparidae

Sepia officinalis

Scomber spp

Pleuronectiformes

Phycis spp

Octopodidae

Mullus spp



Lophius spp

Loliginidae

Elasmobranchii



Crustaceans

Beryx spp

118


Figure 3.2.1.2-g. Bar plots showing the seasonality of the trip types selected among the

clusters obtained in the Northern Spanish coastal fleet (GNS) by year. (GNS-MNZ: trips

targeting monkfish; GNS-HKE: trips targeting hake; GNS-mixed: trips with mixed species

catch).

2003 GNS seasonality

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

month

nu

mb

er

of

trip

s

GNS-MNZ

GNS-mixed

GNS-HKE


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

month

nu

mb

er

of

trip

s

GNS-MNZ

GNS-mixed

GNS-HKE


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

month

nu

mb

er

of

trip

s

GNS-MNZ

GNS-mixed

GNS-HKE

119

Figure 3.2.1.2-h. Silhouette plots of the highest SC clustering obtained by the CLARA

analysis of the technical features of the Northern Spanish coastal set gillnet fleet (GNS).


242126335372330384941872530618433943323519627821442840235577277587419138335395282420431983932731001088827124123619206334199633389234316215104256102125455719725129527424755489713929022216664121643501553741651452544191892334382268139866131153381154434221263318735717338939034714435844536817244141446531744726740511346186161266429132876917632944015135126230421631209994116238051148436140240325248179182283375245195901811616749208399276110701633226314422352382141127194427542611222431331461494474182328827916043039631722493264403130154258636936412041130041650212147337395326301781564461903242212344259406159363262268213180321234170225202397359137413333244128319291107171410940824916913835828720429743776432312152753481812942074046037112842734530124420122929938536331333111552722913871436539302231310379309417284524023817536740938293205142591721388227168292376280283076128934028544479342588934222840118311321813775667386426373323366219443361265327856810913634411112410543942321711721033202691933783491851572982962322921125340041520319228127540783370261351063362393783602868273103982207130827039115824641237113119442237392121328223422503203322573413623111012551881772601147225280230424305394354200964313161341184213651293564351501410303315

Silhouette width si

-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0




j : nj | avei Cj si

1 : 298 | 0.73

2 : 149 | 0.09

120

Fig

ure

3.2

.1.2

-i.

Silh

ouet

te c

oef

fici

ents

(SC)

for

2 t

o 1

0 c

lust

ers,

and s

ilhouet

te p

lots

for

the

hig

hes

t SC o

bta

ined

for

the

Nort

her

n S

pan

ish c

oast

al

tram

mel

net

fle

et (

GTR)

by

year

.

AS

W T

RA

MM

EL

NE

T 2

00

3

0

0.0

5

0.1

0.1

5

0.2

0.2

5

0.3

0.3

5

0.4

0.4

5

12

34

56

78

910

AS

W T

RA

MM

EL

NE

T 2

00

4

0

0.0

5

0.1

0.1

5

0.2

0.2

5

0.3

0.3

5

0.4

0.4

5

0.5

12

34

56

78

910

AS

W T

RA

MM

EL

NE

T 2

00

5

0

0.0

5

0.1

0.1

5

0.2

0.2

5

0.3

0.3

5

0.4

0.4

5

0.5

12

34

56

78

910

Silh

oue

tte

wid

th s

i

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ou

ett

e p

lot

of

cla

ra(x

= p

, k

= k

.be

st)

Ave

rag

e s

ilho

ue

tte

wid

th : 0

.4

n =

60

10

clu

ste

rsC

j

j : n

j | a

vei

Cj

si

1 : 4

|

0.2

8

2 : 8

|

0.3

3

3 : 1

1 |

0.0

5

4 : 7

|

0.4

1

5 : 7

|

0.2

9

6 : 1

1 |

0.7

0

7 : 6

|

0.5

1

8 : 2

|

0.5

3

9 : 3

|

1.0

0

10

: 1

|

0.0

0

Silh

oue

tte

wid

th s

i

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ou

ett

e p

lot

of

cla

ra(x

= p

, k

= k

.be

st)

Ave

rag

e s

ilho

ue

tte

wid

th : 0

.45

n =

60

10

clu

ste

rsC

j

j : n

j | a

vei

Cj

si

1 : 1

0 |

0.5

4

2 : 7

|

0.2

8

3 : 4

|

0.5

2

4 : 8

|

0.3

4

5 : 9

|

0.1

9

6 : 1

1 |

1.0

0

7 : 3

|

0.2

58

: 1

|

0.0

0

9 : 3

|

0.4

6

10

: 4

|

0.0

7

Silh

oue

tte

wid

th s

i

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ou

ett

e p

lot

of

cla

ra(x

= p

, k

= k

.be

st)

Ave

rag

e s

ilho

ue

tte

wid

th : 0

.44

n =

60

10

clu

ste

rsC

j

j : n

j | a

vei

Cj

si

1 : 5

|

0.1

1

2 : 2

|

0.9

73

: 1

|

0.0

0

4 : 4

|

0.3

4

5 : 4

|

0.5

2

6 : 1

0 |

0.1

0

7 : 8

|

0.4

9

8 : 1

6 |

0.7

9

9 : 4

|

0.0

03

10

: 6

|

0.5

2

20

03

2

00

4

2

00

5

RM

IX r

eport

Sec

tion 3

IB

E

121


Figure 3.2.1.2-j. Bar plots showing the catch profiles of the clusters obtained in the

Northern Spanish coastal trammel net fleet (GTR) by year.

2003 GTR catch profiles

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


trip types

perc

en

tag

e

Others

Trisopterus spp

Trachurus spp

Sparidae

Sepia officinalis

Scomber spp

Pleuronectiformes

Octopodidae

Mullus spp


Lophius spp

Elasmobranchii



Crustaceans


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


trip types

perc

en

tag

e

Others

Trisopterus spp

Trachurus spp

Sparidae

Sepia officinalis

Scomber spp

Pleuronectiformes

Octopodidae

Mullus spp


Lophius spp

Elasmobranchii



Crustaceans


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


trip types

perc

en

tag

e

Others

Trisopterus spp

Trachurus spp

Sparidae

Sepia officinalis

Scomber spp

Pleuronectiformes

Octopodidae

Mullus spp


Lophius spp

Elasmobranchii



Crustaceans

122


Figure 3.2.1.2-k. Bar plots showing the seasonality for the trip types selected in the

Northern Spanish coastal trammel net fleet (GTR) by year. (GTR-CRU: trips targeting

crustaceans; GTR-MNZ: trips targeting monk; GTR-mixed: trips with mixed species catch).

2003 GTR seasonality

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

month

nu

mb

er

of

trip

s

GTR-MNZ

GTR-mixed

GTR-CRU


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

month

nu

mb

er

of

trip

s

GTR-MNZ

GTR-mixed

GTR-CRU


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

month

nu

mb

er

of

trip

s

GTR-MNZ

GTR-mixed

GTR-CRU

123

Figure 3.2.1.2-l. Silhouette plots of the highest SC clustering obtained by the CLARA

analysis of the technical features of the Northern Spanish coastal trammel net fleet (GTR).


14733698679209136122241169199229456295217243801713817424060577413822468175784419821571268161128228154511551681314919820815366233108121200972412718013248236164215762032204213028910414424431935

1152341002214194131391862252301051061205010123717317019413410911921191032461896317735702029891239101071834113160204179242716216212124165316112316618313922114014531631591582315249932920329626112992051331211861977337434036881102107775176522261141905442354620117196206142211461917218765219553071271851432231622321354124511148649015184879220713718858213129150282141781722381855616725111145678381181102841824715111722711619522215619212521823159

Silhouette width si


-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Silhouette plot of pam(x = b, k = k.best)n = 246 2 clusters Cj

j : nj | avei Cj si

1 : 184 | 0.72

2 : 62 | 0.09

124

Fig

ure

3.2

.1.3

-a.

Silh

ouet

te c

oef

fici

ents

(SC)

for

2 t

o 7

clu

ster

s, a

nd s

ilhouet

te p

lots

for

the

hig

hes

t SC o

bta

ined

for

the

Gulf o

f Cad

iz b

ott

om

ott

er t

raw

l (O

TB)

flee

t by

year

.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ouett

e w

idth

Avera

ge s

ilhouett

e w

idth

:

0.4

1

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ouett

e w

idth

Avera

ge s

ilhouett

e w

idth

:

0.5

9

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ou

ett

e w

idth

Ave

rag

e s

ilho

ue

tte

wid

th :

0

.31

OB

T 2

003

00.0

50.1

0.1

50.2

0.2

50.3

0.3

50.4

0.4

5

12

34

56

7

nº

clust

er

ASW

OB

T 2

004

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

12

34

56

7

nº

clu

ste

r

ASW

OB

T 2

005

0

0.0

5

0.1

0.1

5

0.2

0.2

5

0.3

0.3

5

12

34

56

7

nº

clu

ste

r

ASW

20

03

20

04

2

00

5

RM

IX r

eport

Sec

tion 3

IB

E

125


Figure 3.2.1.3-b Catch profiles of the clusters obtained in the Gulf of Cádiz bottom otter

trawl (OTB) fleet by year.

2003 OTB cath profiles

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4

trip types

perc

enta

ge

Trachurus spp.Squilla mantisSolea spp.Sepia officinalisParapenaeus longirostrisPagellus spp.OtherOctopus vulgarisNephrops norvegicusMullus spp.Micromesistius poutassouMerluccius merlucciusMelicertus kerathurusLophius spp.Loligo spp.Dicologoglosa cuneataCitharus linguatula


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2

trip types

perc

enta

ge

Trachurus spp.Squilla mantisSolea spp.Sepia officinalisRaja spp.Parapenaeus longirostrisPagellus spp.Pagellus bogaraveoOtherOctopus vulgaris

Nephrops norvegicusMullus spp.Micromesistius poutassouMerluccius merlucciusMelicertus kerathurusLophius spp.Lithognatus mormyrusDicologoglosa cuneataCitharus linguatula


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4

trip types

perc

enta

ge

Trachurus spp.Squilla mantisSolea spp.Sepia officinalisRaja spp.Parapenaeus longirostrisPagellus spp.Pagellus bogaraveoOtherOmmastrephidaeOctopus vulgarisNephrops norvegicusMullus spp.Micromesistius poutassouMerluccius merlucciusMelicertus kerathurusLophius spp.Loligo spp.Lithognatus mormyrusGaleorhinus galeusDicologoglosa cuneataCitharus linguatula

2003 OBT catch profiles

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2

trips types

perc

enta

ge

Trachurus spp.Squilla mantisSolea spp.Sepia officinalisParapenaeus longirostrisPagellus spp.OtherOctopus vulgarisNephrops norvegicusMullus spp.Micromesistius poutassouMerluccius merlucciusMelicertus kerathurusLophius spp.Loligo spp.Dicologoglosa cuneataCitharus linguatula

126

Figure 3.2.1.3-c. Seasonality of the clusters obtained in the Gulf of Cádiz bottom otter trawl

fleet (OTB) by year.



0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

monthsnº

of

trip

s 4321


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

months

nº

of

trip

s

21


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

months

nº

of

metier

4321

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

months

nº

of

trip

s


12

127

Fig

ure

3.2

.1.3

-d. S

ilhouette co

efficients (S

C) fo

r 2 to

5 clu

sters and silh

ouette p

lot fo

r the h

ighest S

C fo

r the G

ulf o

f Cád

iz purse sein

e (PS) fleet

by year.

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

oue

tte w

idth

Ave

rag

e s

ilho

ue

tte w

idth

: 0.7

6

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ouette

wid

th

Avera

ge

silh

ouette

wid

th : 0

.79

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

oue

tte w

idth

Ave

rage

silh

ou

ette

wid

th : 0

.8

Purse

sein

e 2

003

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

12

34

5

nº clu

ster

ASW

Purse

sein

e 2

004

00.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

12

34

5

nº clu

ster

ASW

Purse

sein

e 2

005

00.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

12

34

5

nº clu

ster

ASW

IBERM

IX rep

ort

Sectio

n 3

128


Figure 3.2.1.3-e. Catch profile bar plot of the clusters obtained in the Gulf of Cádiz purse

seine (PS) fleet in the period 2003-2005.

2003 P urse Seine C atch pro f iles

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

C1 C2 C3 C4

trip types

horse mackerel

mackerel

sardine

OTHERS

anchovy


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

C1 C2 C3 C4

trip types

horse mackerel

mackerel

sardine

OTHERS

anchovy


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

C1 C2

trip types

horse mackerel

mackerel

sardine

OTHERS

anchovy

129


Figure 3.2.1.3-f. Seasonality of the two trip types obtained in the Gulf of Cádiz purse seine

(PS) fleet: PS-ANE: trips targeting anchovy; and PS-PIL: trips targeting sardine.

2003 Gulf o f Cádiz Purse Seine seasonality

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

months

PS-PIL

PS-ANE


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

months

PS-PIL

PS-ANE


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

months

PS-PIL

PS-ANE

130

Fig

ure

3.2

.1.4

-a.

Silh

ouet

te c

oef

fici

ent

for

2 t

o 6

clu

ster

s an

d s

ilhouet

te p

lot

for

the

hig

hes

t SC f

or

the

Gulf o

f Cád

iz s

et long lin

e flee

t (L

LS)

by

year

.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ou

ett

e w

idth

Ave

rage

silh

oue

tte w

idth

:

0.5

3

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ouette w

idth

Avera

ge s

ilhoue

tte w

idth

: 0.8

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ouett

e w

idth

Ave

rage s

ilho

uette w

idth

: 0.8

6

RM

IX r

eport

Sec

tion 3

2003 s

et lo

ng li

ne c

adiz

0.4

0.4

5

0.5

0.5

5

2g

3g

4g

5g

6g

nº

de c

luste

rs

ASW

2004 s

et lo

ng li

ne c

adiz

0.6

0.6

5

0.7

0.7

5

0.8

0.8

5

2g

3g

4g

5g

6g

nº

de c

luste

rs

ASW

2005 s

et lo

ng li

ne c

adiz

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

2g

3g

4g

5g

6g

nº

de c

luste

rs

ASW

IBE

131


Figure 3.2.1.4-b. Catch profile bar plot of the trip types obtained in the Gulf of Cádiz set

long line fleet (LLS) by year: LLS-SBR: trips targeting blackspot seabream; LLS-SFS: trips

targeting silver scabbardfish; LLS-mixed: trips with catches of pink dentex, forkbeards,

conger, and others species.

2003 Gulf of Cádiz set longline (LLS) cat ch prof iles

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

LLS-mixed LLS-SBR C3

perc

enta

ges

Xiphia gladius

Trachynot us ovat us

Trachurus sp

Squalidae

Scorpaena sp

Raya sp

Polypr ion americanus

Physis sp

Pagellus sp

Pagellus bogaraveo

Ot hers


L. caudat us

Galeorhinus galeus

Dent ex gibbosus

Dent ex dent ex

2004 Gulf of Cádiz setl ongline (LLS) catch profiles

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

LLS-mixed LLS-SBR LL-SFS

perc

enta

ges

Xiphia gladiusTrachynotus ovatusTrachurus spSqualidaeScorpaena spRaya spPolyprion americanusPhysis spPagellus spPagellus bogaraveoOthersMerluccius merlucciusL. caudatusGaleorhinus galeusDentex gibbosusDentex dentexConger congerBrama brama

2005 Gulf of Cádiz set longline (LLS) catch profiles

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

LLS-mixed LLS-SBR LL-SFS

perc

enta

ges

Xiphia gladiusTrachynotus ovatusTrachurus spSqualidaeScorpaena spRaya spPolyprion americanusPhysis spPagellus spPagellus bogaraveoOthersMerluccius merlucciusL. caudatusGaleorhinus galeusDentex gibbosusDentex dentexConger congerBrama brama

132


Figure 3.2.1.4-c. Seasonality of the clusters obtained in the Gulf of Cádiz set long line fleet

(LLS) by year: : LLS-SBR: trips targeting blackspot seabream; LLS-SFS: trips targeting silver

scabbardfish; LLS-mixed: trips with catches of pink dentex, forkbeards, conger, and others

species.

Seasonality 2003 Gulf of Cádiz set longline

05

101520253035404550

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

month

nº

of

trip

s

C3LLS-SBRLLS-mixed


020406080

100120140160180200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

month

nº

of

trip

s

LL-SFSLLS-SBRLLS-mixed


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

month

nº

of

trip

s

LL-SFSLLS-SBRLLS-mixed

133

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ouette

wid

th

Avera

ge s

ilhoue

tte w

idth

: 0.5

5

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ouette

wid

th

Avera

ge s

ilhoue

tte w

idth

: 0.4

9

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ouette

wid

th

Avera

ge s

ilhoue

tte w

idth

: 0.5

7

Se

tGilln

et 2

00

3

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

12

34

56

7

nº clu

ster

ASW

Se

tGilln

et 2

00

4

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

12

34

56

7

nº clu

ster

ASW

Se

tGilln

et 2

00

5

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

12

34

56

7

nº clu

ster

ASW

Fig

ure

3.2

.1.4

-d. S

ilhouette co

efficients (S

C) fo

r 2 to

7 clu

sters and silh

ouette p

lot fo

r the h

ighest S

C ob

tained

for th

e Gulf o

f Cád

iz set gilln

et

fleet (GN

S) b

y year.

IBERM

IX rep

ort

Sectio

n 3

134


Figure 3.2.1.4-e. Catch profile bar plot of the six trip types obtained in the Gulf of Cádiz set

gillnet fleet (GNS) by year.

SetGillnet 2003

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6

trip types

perc

enta

ge

Other

Squilla mantis

Sparus aurata

Solea spp.

Sepia officinalis

Pomatomus saltator

P. Mediterraneus

Pagellus spp.

Octopus vulgaris


Melicertus kerathurus

Lithognatus mormyrus

Galeorhinus galeus

Diplodus spp.

Dicologoglosa cuneata


Dentex dentex

Argyrosomus regius

SetGillnet 2004

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6

trip types

perc

enta

ge

Other

Squilla mantis

Sparus aurata

Solea spp.

Sepia officinalis

P. Mediterraneus

Pagellus spp.

Octopus vulgaris




Galeorhinus galeus

Diplodus spp.



Dentex gibbosus

Argyrosomus regius

SetGillnet 2005

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6

trip types

perc

enta

ge

Other

Squilla mantis

Solea spp.

Sepia officinalis

Pomatomus saltator

P. Mediterraneus

Pagellus spp.

Octopus vulgaris



Galeorhinus galeus


Dentex gibbosus

Argyrosomus regius

135


1.4-f. Seasonality of the trip types founded in the Gulf of Cádiz set gillnet fleet

(GNS) by year.

Figure 3.2.

2003 Gulf of Cádiz set gillnet seasonality

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

months

nº

of

trip

soctopus

GNS-mixed

GNS-SOL/CTC

GNS-CET

GNS-HKE

GNS-MGR


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

months

nº

of

trip

s

GNS-CTC

GNS-mixed

GNS-SOL

GNS-CET

GNS-HKE

GNS-MGR


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

months

nº

of

trip

s

octopus

GNS-mixed

GNS-SOL/CTC

GNS-CET

GNS-HKE

GNS-MGR

136

Fig

ure

3.2

.1.4

-g.

Silh

ouet

te c

oef

fici

ent

for

2 t

o 6

clu

ster

s an

d s

ilhouet

te p

lot

for

the

hig

hes

t SC f

or

the

Gulf o

f Cád

iz t

ram

mel

net

fle

et (

GTR)

by

year

.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ou

ett

e w

idth

Ave

rage

silh

oue

tte w

idth

:

0.2

3

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ouette w

idth

Avera

ge s

ilhoue

tte w

idth

: 0.2

6

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ou

ette

wid

th

Avera

ge

silh

ou

ette

wid

th :

0

.47

Tra

mm

eln

et 2003

0

0.0

5

0.1

0.1

5

0.2

0.2

5

12

34

56

nº

clu

ste

r

ASW

Tra

mm

eln

et 2004

0

0.0

5

0.1

0.1

5

0.2

0.2

5

0.3

12

34

56

nº

clu

ste

r

ASW

Tra

mm

eln

et 2005

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

12

34

56

nº

clu

ste

r

ASW

RM

IX r

eport

Sec

tion 3

IB

E

137


Figure 3.2.1.4-h. Catch profile bar plot of the clusters obtained in the Gulf of Cádiz trammel

net fleet (GTR) by year.

2003 Trammelnet catch profiles

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3

trip types

perc

enta

ge

Umbrina spp.Torpedo spp.Sparus aurataSolea spp.Sepia officinalisRaja spp.Pomatomus saltatorP. mediterraneusPagellus spp.OtherOctopus vulgarisMullus surmuletusMerluccius merlucciusMelicertus kerathurusLithognatus mormyrusDiplodus spp.Dicologoglosa cuneataArgyrosomus regius

2004 Trammelnet catch profiles

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4

trip types

perc

enta

ge

Umbrina spp.Torpedo spp.Solea spp.Sepia officinalisRaja spp.Pomatomus saltatorP. mediterraneusPagellus spp.Pagellus bogaraveoOtherOctopus vulgarisMullus surmuletusMerluccius merlucciusMelicertus kerathurusLithognatus mormyrusDiplodus spp.Dicologoglosa cuneataDicentrarchus labraxArgyrosomus regius

2005 Trammelnet catch profile

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2

trip types

perc

enta

ge

Umbrina spp.Solea spp.Sepia officinalisRaja spp.P. mediterraneusPagellus spp.OtherOctopus vulgarisMullus surmuletusMerluccius merlucciusMelicertus kerathurusLithognatus mormyrusDiplodus spp.Dicologoglosa cuneataDentex gibbosusArgyrosomus regius

138


Figure 3.2.1.4-i. Seasonality of the clusters obtained in the Gulf of Cádiz trammel net fleet

(GTR) by year.


0

10

20

30

40

50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

month

nº

of tr

ips cluster 3

cluster 2

cluster 1


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

month

nº

of tr

ips

cluster 4

cluster 3

cluster 2

cluster 1


0

10

20

30

40

50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

month

nº

of tr

ips

cluster 2

cluster 1

139

Tra

ps 2

00

5

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8 1

12

34

nº clu

ster

ASW

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ou

ette

wid

th

Ave

rage

silh

oue

tte w

idth

: 0.9

2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

ou

ette

wid

th

Ave

rage

silh

oue

tte w

idth

: 0.9

4

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Silh

oue

tte w

idth

Avera

ge

silh

oue

tte w

idth

: 0.9

4

Fig

ure

3.2

.1.4

-j. Silh

ouette co

efficient fo

r 2 to

4 clu

sters and silh

ouette p

lot fo

r the h

ighest S

C fo

r the G

ulf of C

ádiz trap

fleet by year.

IBERM

IX rep

ort

Tra

ps 2

00

4

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8 1

12

34

nº clu

ster

ASW

Tra

ps 2

00

3

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8 1

12

34

nº clu

ster

ASW

Sectio

n 3

140


Figure 3.2.1.4-k. Catch profile bar plot of the clusters obtained in the Gulf of Cádiz trap

fleet (FPO) by year.

2003 Traps seasonality

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3

trip types

perc

enta

ge

OtherS. cantharusSparus aurataPagellus spp.Pagellus bogaraveoOctopus vulgarisMuraena helenaL. mormyrusHomarus gammarusDiplodus spp.Dentex gibbosusBrama brama


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4

trip types

perc

enta

ge

OtherUmbrina spp.S. cantharusPagellus spp.Octopus vulgarisDiplodus spp.Dentex gibbosusBrama brama


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3

trip types

perc

enta

ge

OtherUmbrina spp.Sparus aurataSepia officinalisPagellus spp.Pagellus bogaraveoOctopus vulgarisMuraena helenaDiplodus spp.Dentex gibbosusConger congerCitharus linguatula

141


Figure 3.2.1.4-l. Seasonality of the clusters obtained in the Gulf of Cádiz trap fleet (FPO) by

year.

2003 Gulf of Cádiz trap f leet seasonality

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

months

nº of trips

FIX-OCT

FIX-mixed

2004 Gulf of Cádiz trap f leet seasonality

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

months

nº of trip

s

FIX-OCT

FIX-mixed

2005 Gulf of Cádiz trap fleet seasonality

0

50

100

150

200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

months

nº of trip

s

FIX-OCT

FIX-mixed

142

IBERM

IX r

eport

Sec

tion 3

Fig

ure

3.2

.2.1

-a.

Silh

ouet

te p

lots

for

the

Port

ugues

e tr

awl flee

t in

the

per

iod 2

003-2

005,

show

ing t

he

Fish

and C

rust

acea

n t

rip g

roups.

143

IBERM

IX rep

ort

Fig

ure

3.2

.2.1

-b. S

ilhouette p

lots fo

r the Po

rtuguese Fish

trawl trip

s for th

e perio

d 2

003-2

005.

2003 2004

2005

Sectio

n 3

144


Figure 3.2.2.1-c. Landing profiles (species composition in % value) of each trip type,

identified in the group of Fish trawl trips, in the period 2003-2005, for the Portuguese trawl

fleet.

2003

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

OTB-HOM OTB-MIX OTB-CEPH

Other

WHB

THS

SSH

SQU

SKA

SBA

OCT

NEP

MAC

JOD

HOM

HKE

BIB

2004

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

OTB-HOM OTB-MIX OTB-CEPH

Other

WHB

THS

SSH

SQU

SKA

SBA

OCT

MAS

MAC

JOD

HOM

HKE

CTC

BIB

2005

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

OTB-HOM OTB-MIX OTB-CEPH OTB-WHB

Other

WHB

THS

SSH

SQU

SKA

SBA

OCT

MAS

MAC

JOD

HOM

HKE

CTC

BIB

145


Figure 3.2.2.1-d. Distribution of species proportions within the clusters OTB-HOM (Group

1), OTB-MIX (Group 2) and OTB-CEPH (Group 3) for the year 2003.

146


Figure 3.2.2.1-d (cont.). Distribution of species proportions within the clusters OTB-MIX

(Group 1), OTB-HOM (Group 2) and OTB-CEPH (Group 3) for the year 2004.

147

Figure 3.2.2.1-d (cont.). Distribution of species proportions within the clusters OTB-CEPH

(Group 1), OTB-MIX (Group 2), OTB-HOM (Group 3) and OTB_WHB (Group 4) for the year

2005.


148

IBERM

IX r

eport

Sec

tion 3

Fig

ure

3.2

.2.1

-e.

Sea

sonal

var

iation o

f th

e num

ber

of

trip

s fo

r ea

ch o

f th

e Po

rtugues

e Fi

sh t

raw

l cl

ust

er g

roups

by

year

.

Mo

nth

s

Number of trips

0

10

20

30

40

50

00000

HO

M

02

46

810

12

MIX

02

46

81

01

2

010

0

20

0

30

0

40

0

50

0

CE

PH

02

46

810

12

Mo

nth

s

Number of trips

0

10

0

20

0

30

0

40

0

50

0

MIX

HO

M

02

46

81

01

2

010

0

20

0

30

0

40

0

50

0

CE

PH

02

46

810

12

Mo

nth

s

Number of trips

0

10

0

20

0

30

0

40

0

CE

PH

MIX

02

46

81

01

2

HO

MW

HB

0100

200

300

400

2003

20

04

2005

149

IBERM

IX rep

ort

Fig

ure

3.2

.2.1

-f. Silh

ouette p

lots fo

r the Po

rtuguese C

rustacean

trawl trip

s for th

e perio

d 2

003-2

005.

Silh

ouette

wid

th s

i

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Ave

rage

silh

ouette

wid

th : 0

.55

n =

29

27

2clu

ste

rsC

j

j : nj | a

vei

Cj

si

1 : 1

24

1 | 0

.38

2 : 1

68

6 | 0

.67

Silh

ouette

wid

th s

i

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Ave

rage

silh

ouette

wid

th : 0

.51

n =

25

09

2clu

ste

rsC

j

j : nj | a

vei

Cj

si

1 : 1

38

7 | 0

.44

2 : 1

12

2 | 0

.59

Silh

ouette

wid

th s

i

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Ave

rage

silh

ouette

wid

th : 0

.63

n =

24

65

2cl

j :

1 :

2 :

2003 2004

2005

1.0

uste

rsC

j

nj | a

vei

Cj

si

106

6 | 0

.59

139

9 | 0

.67

Sectio

n 3

150


Figure 3.2.2.1-g. Landing profiles (species composition in % value) of each trip type,

identified in the group of Crustacean trawl trips, in the period 2003-2005, for the Portuguese

trawl fleet.

2003

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

DPS+NEP DPS

Other

SSH

NEP

HKE

DPS

ARA

ANF

2004

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

NEP+ DPS+

Other

WHB

SSH

NEP

HKE

DPS

ARA

ANF

2005

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

DPS+NEP NEP

Other

WHB

SSH

NEP

LEF

HKE

DPS

ANF

151


Figure 3.2.2.1-h. Distribution of species proportions within the Crustacean trawl clusters for

the period 2003-2005.

2004

2005

2003

152

MIX

rep

ort

Sec

tion 3

2.2

.1-i

. Sea

sonal

var

iation o

f th

e num

ber

of

trip

s fo

r ea

ch o

f th

e Po

rtugues

e Cru

stac

ean t

raw

l cl

ust

er g

roups

by

year

.

Month

s

Number of trips

0

50

10

0

15

0

02

46

81

01

2

DP

S+

NE

P

02

46

81

01

2

DP

S

Month

s

Number of trips

0

50

10

0

15

0

20

0

02

46

81

01

2

NE

P+

02

46

81

01

2

DP

S+

02

46

81

01

2

Month

s

Number of trips

0

50

10

0

15

0

20

0

25

0

02

46

81

01

2

DP

S+

NE

PN

EP

2005

2004

2003

IBER

Fig

ure

3.

153


Figure 3.2.2.1-j. Silhouette plots for the Portuguese purse-seine trips for the period 2003-

2005

154


Figure 3.2.2.1-k. Distribution of species proportions within the clusters for Portuguese

purse-seine in 2003.

155


Figure 3.2.2.1-k (cont.). Distribution of species proportions within the clusters for the

purse-seine in 2004.

156


Figure 3.2.2.1-k (cont.). Distribution of species proportions within the clusters for the

Portuguese purse-seine in 2005.

157


Figure 3.2.2.1-l. Seasonal variation of the number of trips for each of the Portuguese

urse-seine clusters in 2003. p

158


rs in 2004.

Figure 3.2.2.1-l (cont.). Seasonal variation of the number of trips for each of the

Portuguese purse-seine cluste

159


Figure 3.2.2.1-l (cont.). Seasonal variation of the number of trips for each of the

Portuguese purse-seine clusters in 2005.

160


fleet: Plots of si against k, by years. Figure 3.2.2.2-a. Portuguese multi-gear

161

Sectio

n 3

IB

ERM

IX rep

ort

Fig

ure

3.2

.2.2

-b. Po

rtuguese m

ulti-g

ear fleet: Silh

ouette p

lots b

y year 162

MIX

rep

ort

Sec

tion 3

Reg

ress

ions

tree

s.

20

05

Fig

ure

3.2

.2.2

-c.

Port

ugues

e m

ulti-

gea

r flee

t: r

esults

of

the

Multiv

aria

te

20

03

2

00

4

IBER

163


Figure 3.2.2.2-d. Portuguese multi-gear fleet: relative importance (% in value) of tree

clusters in each group of species in 2004 and 2005. (P-LL: pelagic/drifting longline; B-LL:

bottom/set longline).

2004

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cru

sta

cean

Mol.

Biv

alv

es

Mol.

Cephalo

p

Larg

e

pela

gic

s

Dem

ers

al

Bath

yal

Pots&traps

Nets

P-LL

B-LL

Dredges

2005

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cru

sta

cean

Mol.

Biv

alv

es

Mol.

Cephalo

p

Larg

e

pela

gic

s

Dem

ers

al

Bath

yal

Pots&traps

Nets

P-LL

B-LL

Dredges

164


tuguese multi-gear fleet: relative importance (% in value) of tree

usters in each fishing trip type in 2004 and 2005. (P-LL: pelagic/drifting longline; B-LL:

ottom/set longline).

Figure 3.2.2.2-e. Por

cl

b

2004

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Apha

nopu

s

Cha

mel

ea

Con

ger

Loph

ius

Mer

lucc

ius

Mic

roch

irus

Mix

ed

Oct

opus

Oct

opus

&

Oth

er

Page

llus

Sepi

a

Sole

a

Sole

a sp

p.

Sole

nida

e

Spis

ula

Tris

opte

rus

Zeus

fabe

rFishing trip type

Pots&traps

Nets

P-LL

B-LL

Dredges

2005

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Apha

nopu

s

Cha

mel

ea

Con

ger

Loph

ius

Mer

lucc

ius

Mic

roch

irus

Mix

ed

Oct

opus

Oct

opus

&

Oth

er

Page

llus

Sepi

a

Sole

a

Sole

a sp

p.

Sole

nida

e

Spis

ula

Tris

opte

rus

Zeus

fabe

r

Fishing trip type

Pots&traps

Nets

P-LL

B-LL

Dredges

165


Map 3.2.1.1-a. Geographical distribution of the four trip types obtained in the Northern Spanish

coastal bottom otter trawl (OTB) fleet by year (pies centred in the middle of the ICES rectangle).

(OTB-HOM: trips targeting horse mackerel; OTB-MAC: trips targeting mackerel, OTB-WHB: trips

targeting blue whiting; OTB-mixed: trips targeting a mixed of demersal species).

166


Map 3.2.1.1-b. Geographical distribution of both the trip types found in the Northern Spanish

coastal bottom pair trawl (PTB) fleet by year (pies centred in the middle of the ICES rectangle).

(PTB-WHB: trips targeting blue whiting; PTB-MAC: trips targeting mackerel).

167


Map 3.2.1.1-c. Geographical distribution of the six trip types obtained in the Northern Spanish

coastal purse seine (PS) fleet by year. (PS-PIL: trips targeting sardine; PS-ANE: trips targeting

anchovy; PS-MAC: trips targeting mackerel; PS-JAX: trips targeting horse-mackerel; PS-SBX:

trips targeting seabreams).

168


Map 3.2.1.1-d. Geographical distribution of the six trip types obtained in the “big” fleet

segment of the Northern Spanish coastal purse seine fleet (PSB) by year. (PS-PIL: trips


JAX: trips targeting horse-mackerel; PS-SBX: trips targeting seabreams).

169


Map 3.2.1.1-e. Geographical distribution of the six trip types obtained in the “small” fleet

segment of the Northern Spanish coastal purse seine (PSS) fleet by year. (PS-PIL: trips


JAX: trips targeting horse-mackerel; PS-SBX: trips targeting seabreams).

170


Map 3.2.1.2-a. Geographical distribution of the five trip types obtained in the Northern

Spanish coastal set long line (LLS) fleet by year. (LLS-COE: Trips targeting conger; LLS-HKE:

Trips targeting hake; LLS-POL: Trips targeting pollack; LLS-BSS: Trips targeting seabass; LLS-

mixed: Trips with mixed species catch).

171


Figure 3.2.1.2-b. Map showing the geographical distribution of the trip types selected for the

Northern Spanish coastal set gillnet (GNS) fleet by year. (GNS-MNZ: trips targeting monkfish;

GNS-HKE: trips targeting hake; GNS-mixed: trips with mixed species catch).

172


Figure 3.2.1.2-c. Map showing the geographical distribution of the trip types selected in the

Northern Spanish coastal trammell net fleet (GTR) by year. (GTR-CRU: trips targeting

crustaceans; GTR-MNZ: trips targeting monk; GTR-mixed: trips with mixed species catch).

173


4. Métier-disaggregated fishing data

Once the identification of the métiers of the fleets operating in the Atlantic Iberian Peninsula

waters had been achieved, the second objective of the IBERMIX project was to analyze the

feasibility of compiling catch-effort data disaggregated by this new fleet segmentation. For

doing that, those possible changes in the scheme of the respective National Sampling

Programmes were needed to be specified, in such a way it could be estimated the level of

difficulty in putting the new scheme into practice. Then, the third objective was to present a

proposal of métier-disaggregated data to the assessment and management working groups

where the Iberian stocks are dealt with, and then to agree a final métier-disaggregated data

structure by which their suitability and usefulness could be optimized.

In relation to the second IBERMIX objective, it should be taken into account that the current

“National Sampling Programmes” scheme are based on stocks in concordance with the

traditional single-stock approach used by the ICES assessments, which is applied by the

European Commission for managing under a single-stock TAC criterion. The implementation

of these sampling programmes was established following the European Data Collection

Regulation (DCR) for the period 2002-2006 (EC Regulation 1639/2001). However, the

importance of the fleet-fishery approach has been highlighted in the last CFP review, so that

it is currently being taken into account in the new DCR design. The aim of this revision is to

achieve an integrated process, from the sampling to the assessment and management,

which is able to facilitate the application and monitoring of the effort control measures

besides the TAC-based strategy. This new DCR, which should have been implemented since

2007 to 2013, is being still negotiated. In consequence, the old regulation was extended two

years more (2007 and 2008) keeping the traditional system. Therefore, the IBERMIX results

have been available on time to be used in these EC working groups for preparing the

common structure of the new National Sampling Programmes.

Regarding the third IBERMIX objective, the application of métier-disaggregated data, two

aspects of stocks management have been considered: the mixed-fisheries management and

the fishing effort management. Even though both of them are closely related, they have

been undertaken by different working groups due its different level of development. On the

one hand, the mixed-fisheries approach was being developed in the “Working Group on the

Assessment of Southern Shelf Stocks of Hake, Monk and Megrim” (WGHMM) and the “ICES

Study Group on Mixed Fisheries Management” (SGMIXMAN). The first one has been the

responsible on put this approach into practice for the Atlantic Iberian stocks, while the

second one has been more focused on the theoretical development of a mixed-fisheries

management methodology. On the other hand, the first implementation of a fishing effort

management in the Atlantic Iberian waters has been recently undertaken by the “Southern

175


hake and Iberian Norway lobster stocks recovery plans” (EC Regulation 2166/2005). This

management plan, enacted in 2006, aims to rebuild the stock within safe biological limits by

combining TAC and effort management measures. In order to evaluate the effects of theses

measures on the stocks recovery, several meetings of the “SGRST Subgroup on fishing effort

management” have been held since 2006.

Finally, as management measures are based on the stocks status, some extra work was

made in order to improve the catch data used in the single-stock assessments. This issue is

beyond of the IBERMIX working line; however the fleet knowledge achieved was tried to be

applied not only in management but also in the previous assessments they are based on.

Three are the working groups involved in the Iberian stocks assessment: demersal and

Nephrops stocks are dealt with in the ICES WGHMM, while the pelagic stocks are assessed at

the “ICES working group on the assessment of mackerel, horse mackerel, sardine and

anchovy” (WGMHSA) and the “ICES working group on the assessment of the Northern

pelagic and blue whiting fisheries” (WGNPBW). Both of them have specific requirements

regarding catch-effort data, because most of the assessment methods need CPUE time series

for tuning the parameters estimation. However, some of the current tuning fleets are used

identically as they were defined decades ago, in spite of knowing they have experienced

changes in their fishing efficiency or strategy. Obviously, the time series restoration and its

application in assessments is a hard and complex task that need further and deeper analyses

which will surely have to be carried out in an independent project. Nevertheless, a

preliminary restoration of some particular fleets has been advanced into the IBERMIX project

intending to evaluate the viability of this task in the future.

176


4.1. Review of the National Sampling Programmes

When the European Commission requested ICES to establish the base of performing fishery-

based forecasts in 2001 and 2002, ICES reacted by establishing the SGDFF. As it was

described in Section 3, the first task of SGDFF was to provide a guideline for fleet and fishery

definitions. However, its second objective was to advise on a database structure and data

exchange format for the mixed-species and multi-fisheries forecasts. In the same year, the

General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) defined Operational Units (OU)

for the Mediterranean area. Although the OU had been primarily defined for management

purposes, they were also expected to facilitate consistent collection of bio-economic data in

the Mediterranean Sea. On the basis of these experiences, both in the ICES area and in the

Mediterranean Sea, ICES PGCCDBS1 recommended in 2005 that a Workshop be established,

under the auspices of the European Commission, to recommend a fleet and fishery

segmentation to be used for the future sampling design of bio-economic data.

In this view, a Workshop on Fleet-Fishery Based Sampling was carried out by the

Commission in May 2005 to agree on the concepts, the terminology and to define the

process to establish the fleet segments (EC, 2005a). The Workshop proposed a generic

approach to split the fishing trips into groups of similar exploitation pattern, clustered in a

hierarchical tree. An equivalent multi level approach is applied to the fleets for economic

sampling purpose. The economic and biological information can be then gathered

harmoniously in a matrix where the fleets segments correspond to the lines and the fishing

activities correspond to the columns.

This Workshop was followed by a “Workshop on small-scale fisheries” to take into account

their specificities such as multi-species multi-gear fisheries, heterogeneity, high variability in

fishery activity over the time, and lack of information concerning landings, discards and

effort (EC, 2005b). The consequences for defining the sampling protocols to collect

information related to this fleet segment were evaluated. One of the recommendations of the

“Workshop on fleet-fishery based sampling” was that Member States tested this matrix

approach on their national data in order to check its relevancy and if necessary to propose

better adequate and stable national fleet segmentation for the length vessel classes.

1 ICES Planning Group on Commercial Catch, Discards and Biological Sampling.

177


The results would have been presented to the Regional Coordination Meetings (RCMs) by

September/October 2005, so proposal for fleet segmentations at the regional level could be

done and then final decisions for all the areas could be taken during a final Workshop later at

the start of 2006. However, as most of the Member States pointed out the difficulties in

following the recommendations from the May 2005 Workshop, the Commission decided to

postpone the final Workshop by June 2006 and to plan a specific Workshop in March 2006 in

order to train the scientists involved in the Fleet Based Sampling. During this training

Workshop recommendations were made to set the regional matrix, guidelines were given to

fill in the matrix and rules were established to carry out analysis in order to guarantee the

relevant data would be provided to the June 2006 Workshop (EC, 2006a/b). Due to the

difficulty of coordinate such a huge work among the members states, another workshop was

needed to be hold in June 2007 in order to finalize the Fleet-Based Sampling exercise, and

based on the results of the analysis carried out on the national data and the information

provided to the Workshop by the participants, to take final decisions about the regional fleet

segments. These segments will be used in the new Data Collection Framework as key

element for stratification of the regional sampling designs in order to collect information at

the regional level.

Being in the middle of two different sampling systems, the IBERMIX results were timely used

by the National Sampling Programmes in order to integrate the new fleet segmentation with

the new DCR system based on fleets.

4.1.1. Disaggregating of the Spanish fishing data by métier

The Spanish Fishing Sampling Programme is compounded of 5 sub-programmes: Atlantic

European fisheries (divided between Community waters and national waters; ICES);

Mediterranean fisheries (GFCM2); Eastern Central Atlantic fisheries (CECAF3); fisheries of big

pelagic species (ICCAT4, IOTTC5…); and fisheries in long distance waters (NAFO6, SW

Atlantic…). Obviously, the IBERMIX results only will be applied to the Atlantic Iberian Spanish

fleets, in the context of the Spanish national waters of the first sub-programme.

Administratively, the Spanish Sampling Programme is coordinated by IEO in collaboration

with AZTI and under the general supervision of SGPM. As was explained above, it has been

2 General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM).

3 Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic.

4 International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.

5 Indian Ocean Tuna Commission.

6 Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization.

178


designed following the old DCR structure in concordance with the EC regulations 1543/2000

and 1639/2001, being based on a stock-stratification sampling scheme.

The fleet analyses carried out in the IBERMIX project have laid the foundations of the

restructuring of the Spanish Sampling Programme taking in advance the new DCR guidelines

agreed in the course of several EC scientific meetings (EC, 2005; 2006; 2007). Previously to

describe the new sampling scheme agreed, some explanations are made in relation to the

system currently used by both laboratories involved in the Spanish fleet sampling, IEO and

AZTI.

IEO

IEO has been developing a routinely sampling of catches based in collecting sale slips,

sampling at the main commercial ports, discards sampling onboard and sampling of

biological analysis, such as length, age and reproductive parameters. Since logbooks have

been available, the current IEO sampling scheme is structured by the following aspects:

Fishery capacity: all the information arises from the official fleet census provided by

SGPM.

Fishing effort for fleet segment: logbooks for vessels > 10m, and sampling for

vessels < 10m.

Catches and landings: logbooks and sale slips for landings of vessels > 10m;

sampling on port for landings of vessels < 10m; and discards are estimated from

onboard sampling.

LPUE/CPUE: logbooks and sale slips for landings of vessels > 10m; sampling on port

for landings of vessels < 10m; and discards are estimated from onboard sampling.

Biological sampling: length, age and reproductive parameters are obtained from a

combination of biological samplings on port, in the IEO laboratories, on scientific

surveys, and directly on commercial vessels by observers on board.

The geographical coverage includes the most important Spanish ports and fishing gears,

mainly bottom otter trawl, bottom pair trawl, purse seine, live bait and trolling, longline,

hand line, gillnets, trammel nets, and tramps and pots.

Regarding the biology sampling, the list of stocks was established by the DCR taking into

account the amount of landings by stock. In this case, it is distinguished between two

different levels of biological sampling:

Length sampling: blue whiting, hake, anglerfishes, megrims, seabass, conger,

Sparidae, rays, horse mackerel, mackerel, anchovy, sardine, Norway lobsters,

deepwater rose shrimp, octopus, cuttlefish and squids.

179


Age sampling: blue whiting, hake, anglerfishes, megrims, seabass, conger, Sparidae,

horse mackerel, mackerel, anchovy and sardine.

AZTI

AZTI has been developing a routinely sampling of catches based in collecting log-books, sale

slips, sampling at the main commercial ports and sampling of biological analysis in AZTI labs

(this procedure is not described here). At the same time has developed first-step quality

control routines for the data collected. Thus, these samples are collected and routinely

evaluated their representativeness of the existing fisheries/fleets. In this case, almost 90%

of the log-books are available and around 85% of the sale slips for the last 15 years. From

here, the knowledge of the different fisheries that have occurred in the Basque ports along

AZTI existence has been qualitatively derived. Since 1987, catch profiles, gear and area are

being used qualitatively in AZTI as the defining variables used for a “qualitative” fisheries

definition in which research studies have been always based on. This fisheries knowledge has

been built during the last 15 years and as a dynamic process keeps going. In fact, the best

way to explain how AZTI knowledge is in relation to the Basque fisheries is that the analytical

methods used for the “new” Fisheries Definition (new DCR) has actually supported what

already was assumed in relation to the Basque fisheries.

Very briefly, the sampling program of AZTI for landings covers all the Basque ports and all

the species as far as they are disaggregated. In addition to this, monks and megrims, which

are landed without species identification, are processed in order to estimate landings by

species. The sampling program for lengths is based on 14 main species, i.e. hake, megrims

(2), monkfish (2), blue whiting, anchovy, sardine, mackerel, Spanish mackerel, horse

mackerel, albacore and blue fin tuna. These species are sampled for length in 5 different

ports, which represent more than 90% of the total landings of the Basque country. The

target species, stock and gears are sampled on monthly basis and they are selected taking

into consideration the economic and management importance for the different Basque fleets

in terms of individual value or tonnage.

The main gears landing in the Basque country are purse seine (targeting anchovy, sardine,

mackerel and horse mackerel), live bait and trolling (albacore and blue fin tuna), gillnets

(hake in industrial segment and a variety of species in artisanal fleet), longline (targeting

conger, ling and hake), hand line (mackerel), pair trawl (blue whiting, mackerel and hake),

baka trawl (hake, megrim, monk, pout and a large variety of species, depending on sea

area). During 2005, a new gear (twin trawl) focused in catching anglerfish appeared

opportunistically. This new gear is being also monitored both in landings and length

sampling.

180


Regarding the main stocks for Basque fleets, some of them (hake VI-VIIIabcde, anglers VII-

VIIIabd, mackerel VIIIabcd, Spanish mackerel VIIIabcd and horse mackerel VIIIabcd) have

been sampled both in terms of number of individuals and in term of ratio weight

landed/weight sampled.

In case of megrims and anglers in VIIIc, AZTI has no estimates of the landings since 1997

due to the fact that the low levels of landings makes the access to sampling for these species

very difficult. The fluctuation in fourr-spotted megrim ratio is due to the fact that it is not

landed as an identified species but merged with the other megrim so that it is not a target

species in AZTI sampling program. For blue whiting in VIIIc, sampling programs have been

conducted since 1997 onwards. The sampling level for small pelagic (anchovy, sardine) has

been reduced from 1999 levels because of the clear decrease in the landings.

New Spanish sampling scheme

The main difference between the old and the new DCR sampling scheme is the change of the

sampling unit. The old DCR was based on a stock-structured sampling, while the new DCR is

based on a métier-structured sampling. However, previously to put this new design into

practice, it is necessary to determine the sampling strata, i.e. those métiers in which fleets

are segmented.

As it was explained in Section 3, logbooks result a useful data source for identifying landing

profiles and disaggregating the catch-effort data of the Spanish fleets operating in the ICES

Divisions VIIIc and IXa. The only exception is the small scale Spanish fleet, which affects

particularly both the Gulf of Cádiz fleet and the Northern Spanish minor-gear fleet. On the

one hand, estimations of landings and effort are routinely obtained by the Sampling

Programme for the whole Gulf of Cádiz minor-gear fleet (compounded of 503 vessels). On

the other hand, the Northern Spanish minor-gear fleet, which is compounded of 6,654

vessels, is not able to be sampled at the level in which catch profiles can be obtained.

As a result, a combination of the métiers of the Spanish fleets identified by the IBERMIX

project and the stratification of the sampling programme has been integrated in a fleet-

fishery matrix following the new DCR fishing activities classification matrix (Table 4.1.1-a).

By the new DCR, the biological sampling will be established at level 5; however, landings and

effort estimation could be achieved at IBERMIX and geographical levels.

Obviously, such a marked change in the sampling design will be able to produce some

challenges that must be taken into account in advance:

o Sampling strategy: conversion of the old system in a concurrent sampling system

(target species assemblage). The old DCR established stock as sampling unit; the new

DCR is based on fleet units (métiers) in which all the stocks are required to be

181


sampled. This new strategy will increase sampling effort (sampling time, number of

samplers).

o Logistics: Prior métier identification, accessibility to the samples. Some métiers, which

are easily identified by subsequently logbooks analyses, are probably to give

difficulties in prior identification on port.

o Data base: development of the data base structure under the new approach.

o Optimization: assumptions regarding similar length distributions among sampling

strata.

o Coverage: identification of the species to sample by métier. The new DCR establishes

three levels of sampling species: target species, by-catch species, and the remaining

of species.

o Type of information by métier to be obtained: catches, landings, discards, effort,

catch profile, length distribution…

o Fleet dynamic: sampling is based in metiers/fisheries defined the previous year(s)

and so new metiers/fisheries appearing along the year will not be susceptible for

sampling until these are detected, usually after their occurrence.

In order to determine in detail the level of difficulty of all these aspects, some pilot samplings

will be carried out through 2007. Therefore, more specific information will be available about

how to put the new Spanish Sampling Programme into practice, and to fix a stable sampling

scheme under the future DCR implementation.

4.1.2. Disaggregating of the Portuguese fishing data by métier

The Portuguese Institute (IPIMAR) has in practice several schemes of sampling: (i) sampling

at the main commercial harbours, (ii) discards sampling on board of the commercial trawl

fleet (fish and crustacean components), (iii) sampling of biological data (length, age and

maturity parameters) at the laboratory and (iv) sampling of biological data on board of

scientific surveys.

Portuguese data from commercial fleet concerning fishing effort and CPUE are estimated by

IPIMAR from the logbooks data collected and recorded by DGPA (Direcção Geral das Pescas e

Aquicultura). Landings, vessels characteristics and licensing information are also provided to

IPIMAR by DGPA.

At present, the Portuguese sampling programme for length distributions of landings at the

fishing harbours are directed to the main species in the following fleet segments:

- Bottom trawl (hake, horse mackerel, mackerel, Spanish mackerel, blue whiting,

megrims, monkfish, pouting, octopus, squids, Norway lobster, deepwater rose

shrimp and red shrimp)

182


- Purse seine (sardine, horse mackerel, mackerel, Spanish mackerel)

- Artisanal (Polyvalent) fleet:

Longlines (black scabbardfish, hake)

Gillnets & trammel nets (hake, monkfish, horse mackerel, mackerel, pouting,

megrims, etc)

Pots and traps (octopus, cuttlefish).

It is important to mention that the Artisanal/Polyvalent fleet refers to two components: (i)

boats smaller than 12 m (4k1) also called small scale or artisanal and (ii) boats larger or

equal to 12 m (4k2) designated by multi-gear. In the IBERMIX project the proposed

segmentation concerns the multi-gear (4k2) component.

New Portuguese sampling scheme

The proposed fleet segmentation implies some important changes, which can be schematized

as follows:

Current fleets in the Portuguese sampling

programme

Level 5 – Fishing activity regional level

Portuguese Continental waters

Crustaceans Bottom trawl

Demersal Fish

Purse seine Small pelagic fish

Demersal Fish (Bottom Longlines)

Large pelagic Fish(Pelagic Longlines)

Demersal fish (Gillnets and trammel nets)

Cephalopods (Pots & traps)

Multi-gear (4k2)

Bivalves (Dredges)

This change appears to be easily implemented in the future because the components are well

identified. For example in the case of the bottom trawl the two components, crustacean and

demersal fish, in practice corresponds to two types of trawlers identified by their respective

fishing licences.

183


4.2. Supplying results to the assessment and management WG’s

The most practical aspect of the IBERMIX project is to achieve a compromise between the

métiers obtained and the usefulness of this information in the assessment and management

of the species exploited by them. Under this point of view, the target is to establish a

workable number of métiers that can improve the accuracy of the current single-stock

assessment, and can facilitate the implementation of the fishery-based approach in

management. All this work was gradually made attending all the relevant working groups

through the period of the IBERMIX project.

4.2.1. Proposal of segmentation of the Atlantic Iberian fleets in

agreement with the working groups related

Once the Atlantic Iberian fleets were analyzed, identifying their respective métiers, and the

feasibility of a new sampling scheme has been determined, a new Atlantic Iberian fleet

segmentation was presented to the respective working groups. However, this was a gradual

work involving several working groups through the period of the project. In fact, some

preliminary analyses were carried out prior to IBERMIX project.

2005 ICES WGHMM

The first IBERMIX outputs were presented at the 2005 ICES WGMHSA (Castro and Punzón,

2005) even though the project had not officially started. This paper put special emphasis on

the “pelagic strategy” that had been lately detected in the traditionally demersal Spanish

coastal trawl fleet. This work was carried out using sampling data before the Spanish

logbooks were available; as a result, no general conclusions could be achieved.

2006 ICES WGHMM

During the 2006 ICES WGHMM very little progress was made regarding the Spanish fleets

due to the lack of access to the official logbooks before the WG dates. Nevertheless, the

IBERMIX Portuguese team from IPIMAR was able to present some preliminary results

regarding the trawl and artisanal Portuguese fleets (Duarte and Cardador, 2006; Silva and

Cardador, 2006).

2007 ICES WGHMM

The final results for both countries involved in the IBERMIX project were finally presented at

2007 ICES WGHMM (Castro et al., 2007a; Abad et al., 2007; Silva and Murta, 2007; Duarte

et al., 2007; Silva et al., 2007; and Castro et al., 2007b).

184


The Atlantic Iberian Peninsula Fishery Units currently used in the ICES WGHMM (Table 4.2.1-

a) were originally described in the report of the “Southern hake task force” meeting (STECF,

1994), and improved with subsequent contributions only based on qualitative studies (Lart et

al., 2002; STECF/SGRTST, 2002; Velasco et al., 2003) or on analytical methodologies but

using partial information (Punzón et al., 2001; Silva et al., 2002a; Bellido et al., 2003;

Jiménez et al., 2004). Obviously, the detailed IBERMIX results presented at 2007 WGHMM

were considered as an appropriate updating of the fleets components. However, the IBERMIX

outputs had to be adapted in order to satisfy the necessities of the WGHMM, which is focused

on demersal species:

o Spanish fleets (Table 4.2.1-b):

The four catch profiles identified in the bottom otter trawl fleet operating in

the North were regrouped in two components: OTB targeting pelagic species

(SP-OTB-8c9aN-pel), and OTB targeting demersal species (SP-OTB-

8c9aN-dem).

The two trip types obtained in the bottom pair trawl fleet (PTB) operating in

the North were not found consistent enough to be disaggregated. As a result,

it was decided to keep this fleet as an only fishery unit (SP-PTB).

Similarly, the trawl fleet operating in the Gulf of Cádiz was decided to be kept

as an only fishery unit (SP-OTB-9S).

The four trip types obtained in the Northern longline fleet were regrouped in

order to distinguish between the metier targeting WGHMM species (SP-LLS-

HKE) from those targeting other species foreign to the WGHMM.

Regarding the Northern Spanish set gillnet fleet, two métiers target WGHMM

species: hake (SP-GNS-HKE), and monkfish (SP-GNS-MNZ).

Both the traditional minor-gear fleets from the Northern Spain and the Gulf of

Cádiz, denominated artisanal fleets in WGHMM, were still maintained without

desegregation due to their irrelevant WGHMM stocks catches: SP-artisanal-

8c9aN and SP- artisanal-9aS.

o Portuguese fleets (Table 4.2.1-c):

The Portuguese bottom otter trawl results present two métiers: targeting fish

(PT-OTB-fish) and targeting crustaceans (PT-OTB-crustaceans).

Regarding the traditionally called Portuguese artisanal fleet, only two trip

types related with the demersal stocks dealt with in the WGHMM were match

with their correspondent gear: Portuguese set long line (PT-LLS), and set

nets (gillnets and trammel together: PT-GNS/GRT).

185


Comparing the WGHMM current fleet segmentation and the new segmentation proposed,

only four fleets present changes in the aggregation level:

The new SP-SGN-HKE fishing unit merges the old fishing units Gillnet (HKE)

and Small Gillnet (HKE). The last one is not recorded in log-books, and it was

traditionally sampled under strong assumptions without taking into account

its evolution. Nowadays, it is not possible to sample it in a feasible way.

However, their catches will be included in SP-artisanal-8c9aN.

The old Spanish trawl-N fishing unit is split in three new métiers: SP-OTB-

8c9aN-dem, SP-OTB-8c9aN-pel, and SP-PTB-8c9aN.

The old Portuguese artisanal fleet is split in two new fleet components: PT-

GNS/GTR and PT-LLS.

The old Portuguese trawl fishing unit is split into PT-OTB-crustaceans and PT-

OTB-fish.

As a result, all these changes in the hierarchical level of both the old and the new fleet

segmentations will need further analysis in order to determine the possible effect of new

length distributions on the catch-at-age data used in the assessments. Therefore, both

countries were asked by the WGHMM to supply to 2008 WGHMM the length distributions of

these fleets obtained by the old and the new fleet segmentation in order to evaluate possible

effects on assessments.

4.2.2. Use of the fishing data disaggregated by the new Atlantic Iberian

fleet segmentation

One of the fields, in which a detailed fleet segmentation is the most essential input, is the

fleet-based management, particularly in those fisheries where several species are exploited

jointly by the same fleet units. The mixed fisheries approach was firstly assumed by the

European Commission establishing a “Mixed-fisheries” working group under STECF in 2002

(STECF/SGRST, 2002). However, due to the complexity of setting a consistent base in such a

recent approach, ICES decided to establish SGDFF for pointing out the first guidelines as

conceptual definitions, methodological approaches or an agreed catch data structure

(ICES/SGDFF, 2003). Along several meetings from both the institutions, a new methodology

was developed in order to integrate all the aspects needed in a mixed-fisheries management,

the MTAC method (STECF/SGRST, 2002; STECF/SGRST, 2003; ICES/SGDFF, 2003;

STECF/SGRST, 2004; ICES/SGDFF, 2004; STECF/SGRST, 2005).

MTAC is the name given to the approach developed by Vinther et al. (2004) as a means of

generating candidate TACs which takes mixed-fishery effects into account and thus

represents a compromise between the individual single-species TACs. The approach takes as

its starting point the single species catch forecasts from each of the species within the mixed

186


fishery area of concern. In addition to these it also uses catch data by species and

fleet/fishery for these same species to quantify the technical interactions. The other input

required is a series of policy weightings which determine how much priority is given to each

species; how any required effort reduction for a given species is allocated across fleets, and

how each fleet is treated with regard to its target species. These weightings can be supplied

externally, or the fleet-related weightings can be based on the fleet/fishery catch data. By

adjusting the level of relative effort for each fleet/fishery, the approach then arrives at a set

of TACs which fulfil the priorities set by the policy weightings, and which account for the

technical interactions apparent in the data.

Since 2002 to 2005, some ICES assessment working groups tried to implement the mixed-

fisheries approach to their respective stocks by using the MTAC method, as it was the case of

WGHMM in 2004 (ICES/WGHMM, 2005). Nevertheless, ACFM rejected the use of MTAC for

advisory purposes, mostly based on the argument that the data were inadequate. Despite

the concerns of ACFM, STECF has calculated mixed-fisheries catch options for the North Sea,

North-Western and South-Western areas. As a consequence, ICES tried to rethink the mixed-

fisheries approach by establishing a specific workshop in 2006: “Workshop on Simple Mixed

Fisheries Management Model” (WKMIXMAN).

2006 ICES WKMIXMAN

The IBERMIX team attended WKMIXMAN because its most important aim was to find new

methodological frameworks for carrying out mixed fisheries forecasts. Among several

frameworks presented, this study group chose the F3 method due to its simplicity in data

compiling and results interpretation.

The F3 method was developed within the larger development of the multifleet and multi-

species bioeconomic simulation framework TEMAS (TECTAC, 2006), where forecast

simulations of stocks and fleets dynamics are performed in order to evaluate the

consequences of various management scenarios. This simulation framework is built on the

explicit description of fleets’ flexibility, allowing vessels within one fleet to share their activity

on several métiers.

The basic principle of the F3 method is to predict the future levels of effort by fleet, knowing

catchability and effort distribution by métier and TAC forecast by stock. These effort levels by

fleet are thus used to model forecast catches by fleet and stock. Catches can in return be

broken into landings and over-quota discards. The required input data are (i) single species

assessments and catch forecasts, (ii) observed effort and landings by fleet, métier and stock

and (iii) fixed quota shares by fleet and stock.

As the F3 method seemed to be an appropriate framework, it was proposed by AMAWGC to

be used at ICES assessment working groups, but with the intention just to investigate the

187


approach and not to provide advice. As a result, exploratory F3 runs were made at 2006

WGHMM.

2006 ICES WGHMM

Therefore, the first application of the F3 method in the Iberian stocks was carried out during

2006 ICES WGHMM by its mixed fisheries coordinators, both of them involved in the

IBERMIX project. Due to the fact that the WG was hold before the IBERMIX final outputs,

just a traditional compiling of catch data could be used. Nevertheless, the special

characteristics of the Iberian stocks permitted to detect some conceptual problems in the F3

method.

The F3 algorithm provided by WKMIXMAN did not take into account the stock biomass, so

TAC prognosis and effort distributions were wrongly calculated, missing unallocated catches

when the allowed catches are less than the fishing power (ICES/WGHMM, 2006). Particularly,

trials under the most restrictive scenario, proposing zero catches for hake and other species,

only non-zero catches were predicted for non-restricted species (Figure 4.2.2-a). However,

the method assigned the highest effort level to one fleet (SP-trawl), in which hake represents

around 70% of the species considered (Figure 4.2.2-b). Obviously, having some effort

allowed in a fleet catching hake, some catch must be expected in hake (unallocated catch,

knowing the hake TAC was zero).

During 2006 WGHMM, it was pointed out that to calculate the produced catch correctly, given

a fixed level of effort and catchability or fishing mortality, the biomass of each stock should

be included in the calculations. The original F3 algorithm was modified by the IBERMIX team

during the working group in order to proceed with the tests with the Iberian stocks. As

expected, using the reviewed version of F3, the results of the same restrictive scenario

looked more reasonable (Figure 4.2.2-c), showing a clear consistency between the effort

allowed in the SP-trawl fleet and the high level of unallocated catches in hake.

As a result, this review of the F3 method was proposed during the WGHMM (ICES/WGHMM,

2006) and facilitated to the authors who incorporated those aspects in a new version (Ulrich

et al., 2006).

2006 STECF/SGRST fishing effort management

Since 2002, sub-groups of the European Commission’s STECF had run mixed-fishery

analyses, leading to the development of the MTAC approach which preceded the current F3

method. Nevertheless, no such analyses took place during 2006.

188


A series of STECF subgroup meetings in relation to the effort management schemes

associated with cod recovery plans resulted in the compilation of an extensive data set of

catches by gear and mesh size category. As consequence, STECF scheduled a series of three

“Fishing effort management” meetings in 2006 intending to review the effort regulations

implemented until that moment. One of the effort regulations to be evaluated was the Annex

IIB of EC Regulation 51/2006, implemented in the Atlantic Iberian waters in the context of

the “Recovery plan for Southern hake and Iberian Nephrops stocks” (EC Regulation

2166/2005). These effort regulations were specific for gear types and management areas

and defined special conditions, to which the vessels of given fleets had complied or did

comply, hereafter called derogations.

Nevertheless, due to the preliminary state of the IBERMIX analysis, no métier segmentation

of the Portuguese and Spanish fleets was able to be used in any of the 2006 working groups.

Since the definitive IBERMIX results have been successfully achieved, future meetings could

be able to be properly attended.

2007 ICES SGMIXMAN

Since the practical implementation of F3 had been transferred to the assessment working

groups, the MIXMAN workshop was replaced in 2007 by a study group (2007 ICES

SGMIXMAN). One of the SGMIXMAN terms of reference was to evaluate the results of the

exploratory applications of mixed fisheries forecasts (F3) in 2006 WGHMM. Therefore, some

preliminary IBERMIX results were presented in advance in order to better test the F3 method

with a more appropriate segmentation of the Atlantic Iberian fleets. As a result, these runs

allowed a better understanding of the interactions between stocks, showing the importance

of a reliable fleet-métier definition in mixed-fisheries management.

2007 ICES WGHMM

During the 2007 AMAWGC it was decided not to overload the regional assessment working

groups with extra mixed-fisheries management assessments. As a result, even the IBERMIX

final outputs had been obtained in time for supplying data to the 2007 WGHMM, only

information about fleet segmentation was required (see section 4.2.1) but no mixed-fisheries

management using the F3 method was needed to be carried out.

189


4.3. Time series restoration

As it was explained in the introduction of this section, the time series restoration is not one

of the IBERMIX objectives. Nevertheless, some preliminary work was developed in order to

assess the difficulty level of this task.

During the 2007 WGHMM, the standardization of the CPUE time series was emphasized in

order to improve some tuning fleets currently used in assessments. The Iberian stocks

assessments are mainly carried out by XSA except for anglerfishes, which are assessed by

ASPIC. Some of the tuning fleets currently used in the Southern stocks assessments at

WGHMM were defined decades ago. As a result, some analytical assessments are tuned by

using fleets which have experienced changes in their fishing efficiency or strategy, needing

to be split for avoiding strong trends in the CPUE time series (Table 4.3-a).

4.3.1. Spanish time series restoration

The first step for standardizing tuning fleets is to restore backwards the fleet time series split

by métier. Two Northern Spanish coastal fleets have been revised backwards in order to

understand their evolution: the Northern Spanish coastal OTB in VIIIc (1983-2004) and the

Northern Spanish long line in VIIIc-IXa (1994-2004).

Northern Spanish coastal OTB in VIIIc (1983-2004)

For restoring the time series of the Northern Spanish coastal OTB fleet operating in the ICES

Division VIIIc all the available information was compiled; i.e. the samplings by trip for

identifying the catch profiles, and the sale notes for compiling the total landings since 1983

to 2004. However, it was not possible to compile logbooks from that period, so that the

inputs can show differences regarding the logbook data used in the analysis carried out in

Section 3. The total matrix compiled 1,302,803 records from 114,348 trips. From all the 54

species or groups of species originally recorded, only 11 of them were used in the final

analysis: hake, monkfish, megrim, nephrops, blue whiting, conger, pout, mackerel,

catsharks, horse mackerel and octopus. The rest of species were joined and classified as

“others”. After exploring the matrix and removing outliers, catches by species/group were

standardized as percentages of the total catch of the trip. For analyzing the technical

features of the vessels, complete data of power, tonnage and size was available for 212

vessels from a total of 240 vessels.

Regarding methodology, multivariate analysis “CLARA” was used to clustering trip types as in

Section 3. The technical features were analyzed by means a “partitioning around medioids”

190


(PAM) methodology. Both the analyses were carried out by the R software (R Development

Core Team, 2005).

Results of catch profile clustering give the highest value (SC= 0.41) for 4 clusters. Only one

cluster gives a partial SC over 0.5, being the rest between 0.25 and 0.5 (Figure 4.3.1-a).

The catch profiles by cluster permit to identify the following trip types (Table 4.3.1-b):

Cluster 1: trips targeting a mixed of different species where the highest percentages

belong to the group of “other” species, followed by monkfish, horse mackerel and

blue whiting. However, hake and megrim show the highest percentages in relation to

the other clusters.

Cluster 2: trips targeting blue whiting (62% of total catches).

Cluster 3: trips targeting horse mackerel (63% of total catches).

Cluster 4: trips targeting mackerel (76% of total catches).

In order to analyze the evolution of the trip types obtained through the time period,

percentages of cluster were calculated by year (Table 4.3.1-b and Figure 4.3.1-b). The most

evident change along the time is the decrease of the OTB-WHB relative importance, from a

mean of 34.9% of trips in 1983-1998 to a mean of 7.4% in the period 1999-2004. A possible

explanation of this decrease could be given by the competence of the pair trawl fleet (PTB),

whose gear is highly efficient catching blue whiting. In fact, an OTB reduction observed in

some harbours between 1999 and 2001 produced a reallocation of effort directed to PTB, so

that pairs of OTB vessels were joined in order to develop a PTB fishing strategy. As a result

an increase in PTB effort was detected since 2000 (Punzón et al., 2005).

Regarding the analysis of the technical features of the vessels, 2 clusters were obtained with

SC=0.5. One cluster is compounded by vessels of 434 HP, 34 t of tonnage and 26.7 m of

size; while the second one present a mean of 547 HP, 193 t and 32 m of size (Table 4.3.1-c

and Figure 4.3.1-c). The differences between both of the groups are significant regarding

size, power and tonnage. Besides, the year of construction also gives significant results,

being more recent the first cluster compounded by smaller vessels, 1980 of mean instead

1973 for the second group.

A possible relationship between fleet segments and metiers was analyzed crossing the

percentage of each trip type by fleet segment (Table 4.3.1-d), however no significant

differences were found (p=0.97). In fact, percentages of each trip type are highly similar

between both the fleet segments.

As can be noted, results from the 1983-2004 time series are very similar to the results

obtained using logbooks from the period 2003-2005 (see Sub-section 3.2.1.1). This means

an optimistic first step in the Spanish OTB time series restoration, however further analysis

need to be carried out for obtaining useful time series by port. Particularly, the A Coruña OTB

191


fleet must be analyzed individually in order to determine whether the inconsistency currently

detected in this tuning fleet is due to a different evolution of each metier of which it is

compounded.

Northern Spanish coastal LLS fleet in ICES Divisions VIIIc-IXaN (1994-2004)

The Spanish longline fleet in ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa-North was analysed from 1994 to

2004. The available information is from the IEO sampling programme and consisted of the

landing date, the vessel identification, the species landed and the landed weight (kg). The

number of trips before 2000 were very poor (1,375 trips), but were included with the aim to

identify if in previous years had a similar pattern. From all the 144 species or groups of

species originally recorded, only 18 of them were used in the final analysis by applying

similar selective criteria as used in the Northern Spanish coastal OTB time series restoration.

A total of 21,537 fishing trips were objectively characterised from the species composition of

these landings using a non-hierarchical Cluster Analysis (CLARA) technique.

Results of clustering of the entire data set provided the highest silhouette coefficient

(SC=0.59) for 6 clusters (Figure 4.3.1-d). The catch profiles by cluster permit to identify the

following trip types (Table 4.3.1-e):

Cluster 1: trips targeting a mixture of different species (mainly blackspot seabream,

alfonsino, mackerel and horse mackerel).

Cluster 2: trips targeting hake (Merluccius merluccius; HKE).

Cluster 3: trips targeting seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax; BSS).

Cluster 4: trips targeting conger (Conger conger; COE).

Cluster 5: trips targeting forkbeards (Phycis spp.; FOX).

Cluster 6: trips targeting garfish (Belone belone; GAR).

All the clusters show a significant internal SC, except for cluster 1, whose catch profile is

compounded by a mixed of species. The most representative cluster (around 40% of trips) is

cluster 4 targeting conger. Cluster 2, second in importance, is commercially important due to

the quality of hake, its target species.

The monthly analysis from 2000 to 2004 shows a spring seasonal pattern in trips targeting

hake and conger; while trips targeting seabass are concentrated in autumn. Those trips

targeting garfish are clearly concentrated in the first semester (Figure 4.3.1-e).

To classify the vessel types participating in the fishery a “PAM” methodology was used. The

matrix was made up of 626 vessels and the variables used for the identification of groups

were horsepower, vessel length and gross tonnage. Two clusters were obtained with a SC=

0.65 (Figure 4.3.1-f). A possible relationship between fleet segments and metiers (Table

192


4.3.1-f) was analyzed by a chi-squared test (X2=1835.3; df=5; p-value< 2.216) giving

significant results.

Comparing these results with those obtained in Section 3, four similar clusters are found:

trips targeting conger (LLS-COE); trips targeting hake (LLS-HKE); trips targeting seabass

(LLS-BSS); and a mixed cluster (LLS-mixed), with a lightly different combination of species

probably due to the difference in recording criteria.

However, some different clusters were also obtained:

LLS-POL targeting pollacks obtained by using logbooks 2003-2005 is not

identified in the time series.

Cluster 5 targeting forkbeard is only identified in 2003 logbooks.

Cluster 6 targeting garfish is not identified in logbooks analysis.

The sporadic trip targeting Atlantic promfet, identified in 2005 logbooks, is not

identified in the time series probably due to its sporadic character is lost when a

multiyear analysis is carried out.

Regarding the monthly analysis, results show similar patterns in relation to Section 3: LLS-

HKE and LLS-COE concentrated in spring, and LLS-BSS concentrated in autumn.

For evaluating the differences observed between this time series restoration with the results

obtained in Section 3, it must be taken into account that two different data sources were

used. On one hand, logbooks give a complete overview (census) of vessels bigger than 10m;

on the other one, sampling data used for restoring the time series is based on partial

information but including a small scale fleet representation. Similarly, two fleet segments are

obtained by both analyses; however, the low consistency found using an updated vessel list

produce significant results when the whole time series of the vessel list is analyzed.

4.3.2. Portuguese time series restoration.

During the development of IBERMIX it was not possible to rebuild the data series of landings

and effort of the Portuguese fleet according to the level 5 of the fleet segmentation. It is

expected that this task takes place during 2008 and 2009, particularly for crustacean and

demersal fish segments in the bottom trawl.

For some important species, such hake and Norway lobster, subject to a recovery plan, it will

be important to obtain the length distributions from the two segments identified in the trawl

fleet, e.g., crustaceans and demersal fish.

However, at present, IPIMAR is not sampling hake in the market where landings of the

crustacean trawl fleet are auctioned. The source of data for hake, for this segment, could be

193


the sampling program for discards carried out on board of commercial crustacean trawlers,

which has started in 2004. So, it is expected that this information is analysed in 2008.

In the case of Norway lobster, sampling is only carried out for the crustacean fleet in the

market. Also, the discards sampling on board of commercial fish trawlers should be

considered as a source for providing the length distributions of Norway lobster from this

segment. This task is expected to be undertaken in 2008.

194

IBERM

IX r

eport

Sec

tion 4

Tab

le 4

.1.1

-a.

Span

ish S

amplin

g P

rogra

mm

e: t

he

mét

iers

obta

ined

by

the

IBERM

IX r

esults

hav

e bee

n inte

gra

ted in t

he

new

DCR “

Nan

tes

mat

rix”

,

and s

ubdiv

ided

by

geo

gra

phic

al a

reas

for

adm

inis

trat

ive

reas

ons.

Level

1

Level

2

Level

3

Level

4

Level

5

IBER

MIX

Level

NS

S L

evel

Desc

rip

tio

n

Act

ivit

yG

ear

class

G

ear

gro

up

G

ear

typ

e

Targ

et

ass

em

bla

ge

(Meti

er)

(A

rea)

DRED

GES

DRED

GES

Mec

han

ised

/Suct

ion

Dre

dge

[HM

D]

Mol

lusc

s H

MD

-SV

EH

MD

-SV

E-9

aS

Gulf o

f Cád

iz m

echan

ised

dre

dge

targ

etin

g m

ollu

scs

(Cham

elea

gal

lina)

OTB

-mix

ed

O

TB

-mix

ed

-8c9

aN

N

ort

her

n S

pan

ish c

oas

tal bott

om o

tter

tra

wl ta

rget

ing a

mix

ed o

f dem

ersa

l sp

ecie

s (h

ake,

monk,

meg

rim

, nep

hro

ps.

..)

Dem

ersa

l fish

O

TB

-WH

BO

TB

-WH

B-8

c9aN

N

ort

her

n S

pan

ish c

oas

tal bott

om o

tter

tra

wl ta

rget

ing a

blu

e w

hitin

g (

Mic

rom

esis

tius

pou

tass

ou)

Mix

ed c

rust

acea

ns,

ce

phal

opods

and

dem

ersa

l fish

O

TB

-mix

ed

O

TB

-mix

ed

-9aS

G

ulf o

f Cád

iz b

ott

om

ott

er t

raw

l

OTB

-MA

C

OTB

-MA

C-8

c9aN

N

ort

her

n S

pan

ish c

oas

tal bott

om o

tter

tra

wl ta

rget

ing m

acke

rel

(Sco

mber

sco

mbru

s)

Bott

om

ott

er t

raw

l

[OTB]

Pel

agic

fis

h

OTB

-HO

MO

TB

-HO

M-8

c9aN

N

ort

her

n S

pan

ish c

oas

tal bott

om o

tter

tra

wl ta

rget

ing h

ors

e m

acke

rel (T

rach

uru

s tr

achuru

s)

TRAW

LSBO

TTO

MTRAW

LS

Bott

om

pai

r tr

awl

[PTB]

Dem

ersa

l fish

P

TB

PTB

-8c9

aN

N

ort

her

n S

pan

ish c

oas

tal bott

om p

air

traw

l

LH

P-S

BR

LH

P-S

BR

-9aS

G

ulf o

f Cád

iz h

and lin

e ta

rget

ing b

lack

spot

seab

ream

(Pag

ellu

s bogar

aveo

)RO

DS A

ND

LI

NES

Han

d a

nd p

ole

lines

[L

HP]

[LH

M]

Fin F

ish

LH

P-M

AC

LH

P-M

AC

-8c

Nort

her

n S

pan

ish c

oas

tal han

d lin

e ta

rget

ing m

acke

rel (S

com

ber

sc

om

bru

s)

LLD

-SK

X-8

c9aN

N

ort

her

n S

pan

ish c

oas

tal drift

ing longlin

e ta

rget

ing s

har

ks

Dri

ftin

g longlin

es

[LLD

]La

rge

pel

agic

fis

h

LLD

-SK

X

LLD

-SK

X-9

aS

G

ulf o

f Cád

iz c

oas

tal drift

ing lon

glin

e ta

rget

ing s

har

ks

LLS

-CO

E

LLS

-CO

E-8

c9aN

N

ort

her

n S

pan

ish c

oas

tal se

t lo

nglin

e ta

rget

ing c

onger

(Conger

co

nger

)

LLS

-HK

E

LLS

-HK

E-8

c9aN

N

ort

her

n S

pan

ish c

oas

tal se

t lo

nglin

e ta

rget

ing h

ake

(Mer

lucc

ius

mer

lucc

ius)

LLS

-PO

L

LLS

-PO

L-8

c9aN

N

ort

her

n S

pan

ish c

oas

tal se

t lo

nglin

e ta

rget

ing p

olla

ck (

Polla

chiu

s polla

chiu

s)

LLS

-BS

S

LLS

-BS

S-8

c9aN

N

ort

her

n S

pan

ish c

oas

tal se

t lo

nglin

e ta

rget

ing s

eabas

s (D

icen

trac

hus

labra

x)

LLS

-mix

ed

LLS

-mix

ed

-8c9

aN

N

ort

her

n S

pan

ish c

oas

tal se

t lo

nglin

e ta

rget

ing a

mix

ed o

f dem

ersa

l fish

spec

ies

LLS

-deep

LLS

-deep

-9aS

G

ulf o

f Cád

iz s

et longlin

e ta

rget

ing d

eep fis

h s

pec

ies

(Pag

ellu

s bogar

aveo

)

FISH

ING

ACTIV

ITY

HO

OKS A

ND

LI

NES

LON

GLI

NES

Set

longlin

es [

LLS]

Dem

ersa

l fish

LLS

-dem

ers

al

LLS

-dem

ers

al-

9aS

G

ulf o

f Cád

iz s

et longlin

e ta

rget

ing d

emer

sal fish

spec

ies

195

on 4

IB

ERM

IX rep

ort

Tab

le 4

.1.1

-a (co

nt.)

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Level 5

IB

ER

MIX

Level

NS

S L

evel

Descrip

tion

Activ

ityG

ear cla

ss G

ear g

rou

p

Gear ty

pe

Targ

et

asse

mb

lag

e

(Metie

r) (A

rea)

FP

O-O

CT-8

c9aN

N

orth

ern S

pan

ish co

astal traps targ

eting o

ctopus (O

ctopus vu

lgaris)

Mollu

scs FP

O-O

CT

FP

O-O

CT-9

aS

G

ulf o

f Cád

iz traps targ

eting o

ctopus (O

ctopus vu

lgaris)

TRAPS

TRAPS

Pots an

d trap

s [FPO

]Cru

staceans

FP

O-C

RU

FP

O-C

RU

-8c9

aN

N

orth

ern S

pan

ish co

astal traps targ

eting cu

staceans

GTR

-8c9

aN

North

ern S

pan

ish co

astal tramm

el net targ

eting d

emersal fish

tram

mel n

et [G

TR]

Dem

ersal fish

GTR

GTR

-9aS

G

ulf o

f Cád

iz coastal tram

mel targ

eting d

emersal fish

GN

S-M

NZ

G

NS

-MN

Z-8

c9aN

N

orth

ern S

pan

ish co

astal set gilln

et targetin

g an

glerfish

es (Lophiu

ssp

p.)

GN

S-H

KE

GN

S-H

KE-8

c9aN

N

orth

ern S

pan

ish co

astal set gilln

et targetin

g h

ake (Merlu

ccius

merlu

ccius)

GN

S-m

ixed

G

NS

-mix

ed

-8c9

aN

N

orth

ern S

pan

ish co

astal set gilln

et targetin

g a m

ixed o

f dem

ersal sp

ecies

NETS

NETS

Set g

illnet

[GN

S]

Dem

ersal fish

GN

SG

NS

-9aS

Gulf o

f Cád

iz set gilln

et targetin

g a m

ixed o

f dem

ersal species

PS

-PIL

-8b

c9aN

N

orth

ern S

pan

ish co

astal purse sein

e targetin

g sard

ine (S

ardin

a pilch

ardus)

PS

-PIL

P

S-P

IL-9

aS

G

ulf o

f Cád

iz purse sein

e targetin

g sard

ine (S

ardin

a pilch

ardus)

PS

-AN

E-8

bc9

aN

N

orth

ern S

pan

ish co

astal purse sein

e targetin

g an

chovy (E

ngrau

lis en

crasicolu

s)P

S-A

NE

PS

-AN

E-9

aS

G

ulf o

f Cád

iz purse sein

e targetin

g an

chovy (E

ngrau

lis encrasico

lus)

PS

-MA

C

PS

-MA

C-8

bc9

aN

N

orth

ern S

pan

ish co

astal purse sein

e targetin

g m

ackerel (Sco

mber

scom

bru

s)

PS

-JAX

PS

-JAX

-8b

c9aN

N

orth

ern S

pan

ish co

astal purse sein

e horse m

ackerels (Trach

uru

ssp

p.)

PS

-SB

XP

S-S

BX

-8b

c9aN

N

orth

ern S

pan

ish co

astal purse sein

e targetin

g p

orgies (S

parid

ae)

SEIN

ES

SU

RRO

UN

DIN

G

NETS

Purse sein

e [P

S]

Sm

all pelag

ic fish

PS

-mix

ed

P

S-m

ixed

-8b

c9aN

N

orth

ern S

pan

ish co

astal purse sein

e targetin

g a m

ixed o

f small

pelag

ic species

NK

-8c9

aN

North

ern S

pan

ish co

astal unid

entified

gear (sm

all scale fleet usin

g

min

or g

ears) gear

unid

entified

gear

unid

entified

gear

unid

entified

[N

K]

gear u

nid

entified

N

KN

K-9

aS

Gulf o

f Cád

iz unid

entified

gear (sm

all scale fleet usin

g m

inor g

ears)

Oth

er activity than

fishin

g

Oth

er a

ctivity

Oth

er a

ctivity

Oth

er activity

FISH

ING

ACTIV

ITY

Inactive

Inactiv

eIn

activ

eIn

active

Secti

196


Table 4.2.1-a. Current Atlantic Iberian Peninsula Fishery Units used in the ICES WGHMM

with their fishery components based on descriptive studies and the knowledge of the

fisheries.

COUNTRYFISHERY

UNITFISHERY

COMPONENTSAREA TARGET SPECIES DESCRIPTION

Small gillnet Small gillnet

“Beta”

Division VIIIc and IXa North

Mesh size of 60 mm.

Gillnet “Volanta” Division

VIIIc

Hake

Mesh size of 90 mm. Gillnet

Gillnet “Rasco” Division

VIIIcAnglerfish Mesh size of 280 mm.

Long line Long line fleet Division

VIIIcHake + Great Fork

beard + Conger NorthernArtisanal

Northern Artisanal

Miscellaneous fleet

SouthernArtisanal

Southern Artisanal

South of Division IXa

Miscellaneous fleet

Pair Bottom Trawl Fishery (VHVO gear)

Divisions VIIIc and IXa North.

Blue whiting + hake Mesh size of 55 mm

Vertical opening of 25 m.

Bottom Trawl Fishery (“baca”

gear)

Divisions VIIIc and IXa North.

Horse mackerel + Blue whiting+ Mackerel+ hake + megrim + monk + nephrops

Mesh size of 65 mm Opening: 1.2-1.5 m Northern

Trawl fleet

Bottom Trawl Fishery

(HVO gear)

Divisions VIIIc West and IXa North

Horse mackerel + mackerel

Mesh size of 65 mm Vertical opening of 5-

5.5 m

Spain

Southerntrawl fleet

(Gulf of Cádiz)

Gulf of Cadiz Trawl fleet

South of Division IXa

Sparids + Cephalopods + Sole+ Hake + Horse

mackerel + Blue whiting + Shrimp

+ Norway lobster

Mesh size of 40 mm Vertical opening

reduced.

ArtisanalTwo components

(inshore and Offshore)

Division IXa Hake + octopus + pout + horse mackerel +

others

80 mm mesh size (gillnet); 100 mm

mesh size (trammel); long line not available

fish Division IXaHorse mackerel + hake

+ monk + nephrops Mesh size of 65 mm Portugal

Trawl

crustaceans Division IXa Nephrops + pink

shrimp + red shrimp + hake + monk

Mesh size of 55 mm

197


Table 4.2.1-b. Spanish fleet segmentation proposed at 2007 ICES WGHMM.

Spanish fleets in ICES Div. VIIIc-IXa

Current fleets in WGHMM New fleet segmentation proposed

Gillnet (rasco) SP-GNS-8c9aN-MNZ

Gillnet (volanta)

Small Gillnet (beta) SP-SGN-8c9aN-HKE

Long line SP-SLL-8c9aN

SP-OTB-8c9aN-dem

SP-OTB-8c9aN-pel Northern Trawl fleet

SP-PTB-8c9aN

Northern Artisanal SP-artisanal-8c9aN

Southern Trawl fleet (Cádiz) SP-OTB-9aS

Sothern Artisanal (Gulf of Cádiz) SP- artisanal-9aS

Table 4.2.1-c. Portuguese fleet segmentation proposed at 2007 ICES WGHMM.

Portuguese fleets in ICES Div. VIIIc-IXa

Current fleets in WGHMM New fleet segmentation proposed

PT-GNS/GTR Artisanal

PT-LLS

PT-OTB-crustaceans

TrawlPT-OTB-fish

198


Table 4.3-a. Current tuning fleets used in ICES WGHMM for assessing the Southern stocks:

three tuning fleets had to be split in two different periods in order to avoid noisy effects on

the XSA assessments.

Stock Tuning fleet (WGHMM06)

Southern hake

P-TR-89 P-TR-95

SP-CORUTR8c-85 SP-CORUTR8c-94

SP-CORUTRP8c-85SP-CORUTRP8c-94

SP-SANTR SP-VIMATR

Southern anglerfishes SP-CORUTR8c

P-TR

Southern megrims SP-CORUTR8c SP-AVILESTR

Nephrops FU25 SP-CORUTR8c Nephrops FU26-27 SP-MATR Nephrops FU28-29 P-TR

Table 4.3.1-a. Catch profiles by cluster obtained for the Northern Spanish coastal OTB fleet

time series (1983-2004).

Spp. cluster 1 cluster 2 cluster 3 cluster 4

BIB 3.8 1.5 1.4 0.3

COE 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.1

HKE 7.6 3.9 3.5 1.3

HOM 11.3 10.4 63.4 15.3

LEZ 7.9 2.9 2.2 0.7

MAC 3.8 3.4 9.4 75.8

MNZ 13.3 5.6 3.0 1.3

NEP 3.4 2.1 0.7 0.1

OCT 5.0 2.7 2.4 0.8

SYC 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.1

WHB 9.9 62.0 9.1 3.0

others 31.9 1.6 4.3 1.1

EFFORT (days) 38879 32529 35092 4790

199


Table 4.3.1-b. Annual relative importance (in percentage of trips) of the four metiers

obtained for the Northern Spanish coastal OTB fleet time series (1983-2004).

year OTB-mixed OTB-WHB OTB-HOM OTB-MAC

1983 36.1 27.7 35.1 1.1

1984 37.5 19.9 41.3 1.2

1985 26.2 37.6 35.9 0.4

1986 26.3 46.3 25.7 1.8

1987 40.0 27.7 30.6 1.6

1988 30.8 45.6 22.1 1.5

1989 27.3 42.1 29.0 1.6

1990 25.4 45.0 25.6 4.0

1991 29.5 37.4 29.4 3.7

1992 31.6 34.7 32.7 1.0

1993 23.8 34.5 41.0 0.7

1994 22.8 35.7 36.9 4.6

1995 33.0 29.8 33.7 3.5

1996 30.9 29.8 36.5 2.8

1997 34.7 38.2 24.1 3.0

1998 37.0 27.5 30.5 5.0

1999 68.3 10.3 16.7 4.7

2000 51.0 9.1 28.1 11.7

2001 36.6 10.0 43.9 9.5

2002 46.0 5.6 36.0 12.4

2003 55.9 5.2 29.9 9.0

2004 58.8 4.4 27.0 9.8

Table 4.3.1-c. Mean technical features of both the fleet segments obtained for the Northern

Spanish coastal OTB fleet in the period 1984-2004.

Fleet segment 1

Fleet segment 2

mean 434.1 547.5

SE 103.1 212.1 power

cofidence limit 16.1 56.6

mean 26.7 32.1

SE 2.1 2.1 tonnage


mean 134.9 193.6

SE 21.0 28.8 size


ITEMS 158 54

200


Table 4.3.1-d. Proportion of métiers by fleet segment for the Northern Spanish coastal OTB

fleet.

OTB métiers Fleet

segment 1 Fleet

segment 2 OTB-mixed 36.4 33.3 OTB-WHB 28.6 31.0 OTB-HOM 31.1 31.3 OTB-MAC 4.0 4.4

Table 4.3.1-e. Catch profiles by cluster obtained for the Northern Spanish coastal LLS fleet

time series (1994-2004).

spp. C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

Belone belone 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 98.3

Beryx spp 13.8 0.4 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.1

Conger conger 3.2 1.0 1.6 94.9 14.5 0.5

Dicentrarchus labrax 0.4 0.0 82.5 0.1 0.0 0.2

Diplodus spp 2.1 0.0 11.1 0.1 0.0 0.1

Loligo spp 2.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0



Mullus surmuletus 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0

Pagellus acarne 2.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0


Pagrus pagrus 3.0 0.1 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.0

Phycis spp 0.9 1.0 0.0 1.9 81.7 0.0

Polyprion americanus 6.3 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.9 0.0

Pollachius spp 8.7 0.3 3.3 0.1 0.0 0.0

Scomber scombrus 13.6 4.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.6

Trachurus trachurus 11.2 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0

Trisopterus spp 3.6 0.9 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0

Effort (days) 7525 2124 1549 7908 1416 873

201


Table 4.3.1-f. Proportion of métiers by fleet segment for the Northern Spanish coastal LLS

fleet.

LLSmétiers

Fleetsegment 1

Fleetsegment 2

LLS-mixed 78.8 21.2 LLS-HKE 73.0 27.0 LLS-BBS 88.9 11.1 LLS-COE 86.8 13.2 LLS-FOX 40.2 59.8 LLS-GAR 92.3 7.7

202


Figure 4.2.2-a. Predicted catch by species for the WGHMM Southern stocks by using the

original version the F3 method. No hake catches are predicted despite of effort for some

fleets targeting hake is still allowed.

Figure 4.2.2-b. Predicted effort by fleet for the WGHMM Southern stocks by using the

original version the F3 method.

203


Figure 4.2.2-c. Predicted catch by species for the WGHMM Southern stocks by using the

version the F3 method reviewed in 2006 WGHMM. Hake unallocated catches are predicted in

concordance with the effort allowed in prediction.

204


Figure 4.3.1-a. Silhouette plot of the Northern Spanish coastal OTB fleet time series (1983-

2004). .

33641709

3425

101765

578837778

4883220012

732446664

660891102

72966946

5206645233

4897452106

7383523938

6844098712

37137106442

5043739180

7977268631

6227078835

10364372829

694762088

9697895237

832121168

103898106174

966797629

450940488

1717096301

608596276

Silhouette width si

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Silhouette plot of clara(x = b, k = k.best)



j : nj | avei Cj si

1 : 18 | 0.28

2 : 14 | 0.43

3 : 13 | 0.49

4 : 3 | 0.74

205


Figure 4.3.1-b. Annual and monthly plots of the four metiers obtained for the Northern

Spanish coastal OTB fleet time series (1983-2004).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

05

10

15

Tipo de Marea T_MIX

Meses

úe

ode

aeas

0

5

10

15

N Mar.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004

Tipo de Marea T_MIX

Meses

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

010

20

30

40

Tipo de Marea T_WHB

Meses

úe

ode

aeas

0

10

20

30

40

N Mar.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004

Tipo de Marea T_WHB

Meses

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

05

10

15

20

25

Tipo de Marea T_HOM

Meses

úe

ode

aeas

0

5

10

15

20

25

N Mar.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004

Tipo de Marea T_HOM

Meses

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

020

40

60

80

Tipo de Marea T_MAC

Meses

úe

ode

aeas

0

20

40

60

80

N Mar.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004

Tipo de Marea T_MAC

Meses

206


Figure 4.3.1-c. Silhouette plot of the Northern Spanish coastal OTB fleet clustering by

vessel features.

911582013915948381891985919612418616115620821221120910921019720711013716043412711520042111112202282917513360922046217020620531113162619311417119118320312310064812618888851572513687896861166318718514182901691641811991321931261921281671841

103215517412019483165155814854214931544

401631534610217280971681958471491799418077152190151142475351505324821766637143122132252131173368237932116533166551042056135134912101717867144501014417712716121140139181911713030147105511071386910812976961461411067812534459857756814574957311911870997271

Silhouette width si

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0



j : nj | avei Cj si

1 : 158 | 0.54

2 : 54 | 0.40

207


Figure 4.3.1-d. Silhouette plot of the Northern Spanish coastal LLS fleet time series (1994-

2004).

Silhouette w idth si

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Silhouette plot of clara(x = pmat, k = k, samples = muestras)

Average silhouette w idth : 0.59


j : nj | avei Cj si

1 : 13 | 0.035

2 : 7 | 0.8

3 : 6 | 0.67

4 : 20 | 0.79

5 : 3 | 0.67

6 : 3 | 0.87

208


Figure 4.3.1-e. Annual and monthly plots of the six métiers obtained for the Northern

Spanish coastal LLS fleet time series (2000-2004).

LLS-mixed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

46

810

12

14

16

Months

eps

0

5

10

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Months

LLS-HKE (Merluccius merluccius)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

010

20

30

40

Months

eps

0

10

20

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Months

LLS-BSS (Dicentrarchus labrax)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

010

20

30

Months

eps

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Months

209


Figure 4.3.1-e (cont.). Annual and monthly plots of the six métiers obtained for the

Northern Spanish coastal LLS fleet time series (2000-2004).

LLS-COE (Conger conger)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

510

15

20

Months

eps

0

5

10

15

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Months

LLS-FOX (Phycis spp.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

510

15

20

25

Months

eps

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Months

LLS-GAR (Belone belone)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

05

10

15

20

25

Months

eps

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Months

210


Figure 4.3.1-f. Silhouette plot of the Northern Spanish coastal LLS fleet clustering by vessel

features.

574544282923501716132813861625452225262216330524739534655052119913862153459417499254273694085834727524415160851643922562091851736116004013239911261026137020718338338831562226024052120319331341563576152061885175112011667618659258257198301875223724739651939036719136360246387330454055082693783971221837651845198591232403520108288115214292771893550960540438918122950551337724346365168107823683131801823933946662204374391366643751926265106819061515470373371196149526593131578159235531940055723325330639819449445841543657248402359158620382565422450615262814877474259241223166177719538032113034035635522535429323022422061412140945233105455384137219242111468501143123738158613405731951395684964221579511843165811695972785615565645025495403044583233583073283495555075524795512023201431752876243614393484181972082175431992055361203923323251453245321046333450333534346045391577525596141123417127592103878513354653217448481533311482122297467272655410658546952316543752829838532948833149944579239623489132155504264271534305665962151763193173441794501251464537448414745722626832634557551265693625705444134351006187152290314170494406492434436478411364339112793035476016091177024967309580472422392524295714751281184127616126712443113427423532215034229460423816714433816044127354859925018341285574280336602227172862485006125045763373332862833532124144765124904194874384407842344628946523613843257749149353052553830247146662526472228318291308213416565495531483266126295617270142424583603178524842116165141364205631645695824105622375589729620011027131055963222560527352894986063518190806073004645898348644448058710156759524541547348539412810411610210204252634431091359328422114023445632759094882997353555360113421497442541231537477598379114433447554282461251529619129301462459588216407449

Silhouette width si

-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Silhouette plot of pam(x = flotas, k = 2)



j : nj | avei Cj si

1 : 467 | 0.77

2 : 159 | 0.30

211


5. Conclusions

The IBERMIX project has been a short-term project (18 months) that, due to the huge

amount of work developed, meant a full-time commitment for whole the IBERMIX team of

the three laboratories involved: IEO, AZTI and IPIMAR. Fortunately, most of the IBERMIX

objectives have been successfully achieved.

5.1. Identification of fleets/fisheries/métiers

Regarding the available information of catch/economic profiles by trip and fishing activities

features, daily vessel landings per species, in weight and value, could be compiled in the

case of the Portuguese fishing data. Assuming that the value of the catch is be the best

descriptor of the fishing fleets activity (ICES/SGDFF, 2003), the analysis was performed on

landings value. In what concerns the Spanish data, it was the first time that logbooks were

available for all the Spanish fleets and, as it was detailed in previous sections, these data

have shown to be an appropriate source for analyzing fleet catch profiles and defining

métiers, except for the minor-gear fleets.

Several multivariate statistical techniques have been tried through the IBERMIX project,

finally selecting the CLARA cluster analysis and a multivariate regression tree. On the one

hand, the CLARA method is not only more robust than other techniques, but it is also a very

practical tool because it is able to analyse huge data bases as logbooks very quickly.

Besides, it provides plots and clustering coefficients very useful when a gradual analysis is

needed to be carried out for contrasting with the knowledge of the fisheries. On the other

hand, the multivariate regression tree has turned out specifically useful in the case of the

Portuguese multi-gear fleet, where the combination of different type of gears makes it

difficult to match individual gears with catch profiles.

5.2. Fishing data disaggregated by métier

Once the IBERMIX results in métier identification were obtained, they were used for re-

designing the “National Sampling Programmes”. Firstly, the IBERMIX results were discussed

with the respective Data Base teams, trying to agree a consensus between the structure of

commercial fishing data, the onboard observers programmes, and the biological sampling

schemes. Secondly, the IBERMIX computing routines constitute a basis establishing the

standard methodology to obtain métier-disaggregated data in automatic processes. Finally,

the new DCR scheme has been taken seriously into account because it will be the sampling

framework for integrating the whole European fishing data in the near future.

213


5.3. Supplying IBERMIX results to WG’s

The first dissemination of IBERMIX results was a proposal of segmentation of the Spanish

and Portuguese fleets, which was facilitated to the ICES assessment working groups related

with the stocks exploited by them. Particularly, WGHMM was the forum chosen for

presenting the final IBERMIX fleet segmentation because it is where the most important

Atlantic Iberian demersal stocks are assessed. The Spanish and Portuguese fleet

segmentations were discussed in plenary, and they were finally adapted to the specific

requirements of WGHMM.

Secondly, some preliminary IBERMIX métier-disaggregated data were used for testing the

new mixed-fisheries methodology that is being developed in ICES, the F method.3

Finally, the definitive IBERMIX results were not available in time for satisfying the

requirements of the “STECF effort control regime working group”. Nevertheless, now the

final results have been achieved, these new data requirements will be fulfilled in short time.

214

IBERMIX report References

References

Abad, E.; A. Punzón, J. Castro, M. Marín and L. Silva. 2007. Métiers of the Northern Spanish coastal fleet using fixed gears. WD02 presented at ICES WGHMM07.

Andrade J.P. et al., 2001. Collection of Biological data of 5 flatfish species from Iberian waters (Portuguese COSAT and Gula of Cádiz). Study Contract 97/0083, Final Report.

Afonso-Dias, M., Sobrino, I. and Pestana, G. 1999. Analysis of the South Atlantic Artisanal Fishery: Fleet Components, Specific Effort and Sampling Design. Final Report EC-DGXIV/C/STUDY/96/066

Afonso-Dias, M, Simões, J., Pinto, C. and Sousa, P. 2002. Use of satellite GPS data to map effort and landings of the Portuguese crustacean fleet. Final Report EC-DGXIV/STUDY/99/059

Anonymous, 1997. Plan de Modernización del Sector Pesquero Andaluz. Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Agricultura y Pesca. Depósito Legal: J-243-1997

Anonymous, 1999. Ordenación y regulación de la actividad pesquera en el estuario del Guadalquivir. Dirección General de Gestión del Medio Natural, Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Junta de Andalucía. 163 p.

Anonymous, 2001. Las artes de pesca en el litoral gaditano. Diputación Provincial de Cádiz. 245 pp.

Arias, A.M., P. DRAKE 1990. Estados juveniles de la ictiofauna en los caños de las salinas de la Bahía de Cádiz. Instituto de Ciencias Marinas de Andalucía, Cádiz, 163 pp.

Baldaque da Silva, A.A. 1891. Estado actual das pescas em Portugal. Lisboa, Imprensa Nacional, 520 p.

Baldo F. et al.,2006. Spatial and temporal distribution of the early life stages of three commercial fish species in the northeastern shelf of the Gulf of Cádiz. Deep-see Research II (53): 1391-1401.

Bellido, J.M., Pérez, N., Castro, J., and Araújo, H. 2003. Some insights on a possible métiers definition of the North coast Spanish demersal fishery by using total catch data. WD No. 4 in 2003 ICES WGHMM (ICES CM 2004/ACFM02).

Biseau, A. 1998. Definition of a directed fishing effort in a mixed-species trawl fishery, and its impact on stock assessments. Aquat. Living Resour. 11 (1998) 119 136.

Biseau, A. and Gondeaux, E. 1988. Apport des méthodes d’ordination en typologie des flottilles. Journal du Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer, 44 : 286-296.

Borges, T.C., Erzini, K., Bentes, L., Costa, M.E., Gonçalves, J.M.S., Lino, P.G., Pais, C. and Ribeiro, J. 2001. By-catch and discarding practices in five Algarve (southern Portugal) métiers. J. Appl. Ichthyol., 17: 104-114

Breiman, L.; Friedman,J. H., Olshen, R.A. and Stone, C.J. 1984. Classification and Regression Trees. Monterey, California: Wadsworth and Brooks/Cole..

Campos, A. and Fonseca, P. 2003. Selectivity of diamond and square mesh codends for horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus). European hake (Merluccius merluccius) and axillary seabream (Pagellus acarne) in the shallow groundfish assemblage off the southwest coast of Portugal. Sci. Mar. 67, 249–260.

Campos, A. and Fonseca, P. 2004. The use of separator panels and square mesh windows for by-catch reduction in the crustacean trawl fishery off the Algarve (South Portugal). Fish.Res.69: 147–156.

Campos, A., Fonseca, P. and Erzini, K. 2002. Size selectivity of diamond and square mesh cod ends for rose shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris) and Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) off the Portuguese south coast. Fish. Res. 58, 281-301.

Campos, A., Fonseca, P. and Henriques, V. 2003a. Size selectivity for four fish species of the deep groundfish assemblage off the Portuguese southwest coast: evidence of mesh size, mesh configuration and cod end catch effects. Fish. Res. 63: 213–233

Campos, A., Fonseca, P. and Erzini, K. 2003b. Size selectivity of diamond and square mesh cod ends for four by-catch species in the crustacean fishery off the Portuguese south coast. Fish. Res. 60, 79–97.

Campos, A., Fonseca, P., Fonseca, T. and Parente, J. 2007. Definition of fleet components in the Portuguese bottom trawl fishery. Fish. Res., 83 (2-3): 185-191.

215

References IBERMIX report

Cardador, F. 1986. New experiments on trawl mesh selection of hake on the Portuguese coast. ICES Doc. C.M. 1986/B:16, 22p.

Cardador, F. and Borges, M.F. 1991. Bottom trawl mesh selection of Hake (Merluccius merluccius L.) and Horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus L.) in the Portuguese coast. Bol.Inst.Nac.Invest.Pescas, Lisboa, 16:73-84.

Carneiro, M., Martins, R. and Rebordão, F.R. 2006. Contribuição para o conhecimento das artes de pesca utilizadas no Algarve. Publicações Avulsas do IPIMAR, 13, 76p. + 57 Planos Técnicos.

Castro, J., Punzón, A. 2005. Pelagic métiers of the Northern Spanish coastal bottom trawl fleet. WD04/05 in 2005 ICES WGMHSA (ICES CM 2006/ACFM:08).

Castro, J., M. Marín, A. Punzón, E. Abad, L. Silva, M. Santurtún and I. Quincoces. 2007a. Métiers of the Northern Spanish coastal bottom trawl fleet. WD01 presented at ICES WGHMM07.

Castro, J.; F. Cardador, M. Santurtún, A. Punzón, I. Quincoces, C. Silva, R. Duarte, A. Murta, L. Silva, E. Abad, and M. Marín. 2007b. Proposal of fleet segmentation for the Spanish and Portuguese fleets. WD06 presented at ICES WGHMM07.

Costa, F. C., Franca, M.L.P. and Calado, C. 1984. Pesca Artesanal na Zona Centro da Costa Ocidental Portuguesa. Documentação fotográfica. Publicações avulsa do INIP, 4, 96 p.

De'ath, G. 2002. Multivariate Regression Trees: A New Technique for Modelling Species – Environment Relationships. Ecology 83(4):1103-1117.

Duarte, R. and Cardador, F. 2006. First approach to describe Portuguese Artisanal fleet components. Working Document presented to the WGHMM meeting, Bilbao, 9-18 May, 2006.

Duarte, R., Azevedo, M. and Cardador, F. 2007. Métiers of the Portuguese multi-gear (artisanal) fleet. Working Document presented to the WGHMM meeting, Vigo, May, 2007.

EC, 2001. Request AIW/mrD(2001).

EC, 2002. Request FISH/A1/KP D(2002) 11226.

EC, 2005a. Report of the Ad Hoc Meeting of independent experts on Fleet-Fishery based sampling. Nantes, 23-27 June 2005.

EC, 2005b. Report of the Workshop on Small-Scale Fisheries. Kavala, Greece, 12-16th September 2005.

EC, 2006a. EU Data Collection Regulation, 1543/2000 establishing a Community framework for the collection and management of data needed to conduct the CFP. Training workshop on fleet-based approach. Nantes, France, 13-17 March 2006.

EC, 2006b. Report of the Ad Hoc Meeting of independent experts on Fleet-Fishery based sampling. Nantes, 12-16 June 2006.

Eça, V.A. 1909. As pescas marítimas em Portugal. Sociedade de Geographia de Lisboa, 42p.

Erzini, K., Costa, M.E., Bentes, L. and Borges, T.C. 2002. A comparative study of the species composition of discards from five fisheries from the Algarve (southern Portugal). Fish. Manag. and Ecology, 9: 31-40.

Fernandes, A.C., Barbosa, S. and Silva, D. 2006a. Hake discards estimates for Portuguese bottom trawl. Working Document presented to the WGHMM meeting, Bilbao, 9-18 May, 2006.

Fernandes, A.C., Barbosa, S. and Silva, D. 2006b. Nephrops discards estimates for Portuguese crustacean trawl fleet. Working Document presented to the WGHMM meeting, Bilbao, 9-18 May, 2006.

Fernandes, A.C., Barbosa, S., Jardim, E. and Pestana, G. 2007. Discards estimates of Merluccius merluccius and Nephrops norvegicus for 2004-2006 period for Crustacean and Fish Trawl fleets in IXa Portuguese area. Working Document for the ICES Working Group on the Assessment of Southern Hake, Monk and Megrim (WGHMM). Vigo, 8-17 May 2007.

Folkard A.M., Davies P.A., Fiuza A.F.G. Y Ambar I., 1997. Remotely sensed sea surface thermal patterns in the Gulf of Cadiz and the Strait of Gibraltar: variability, correlations and relationship with the surface wind field. Journal of geophisical research, 102 (C3): 5669-5683.

Fonseca, P., Campos, A. and Feitoria, J. 1998. Square mesh windows experiments in Portuguese waters. Int. Coun. Explor. Sea, BB:12.

Fonseca P., Campos A., Garcia A., Cardador F., Meixide M., Padín A., Theret F., Mellita M., and Morandeau, F. 2000. Trawl Selectivity Studies in Region 3. Study Contract Nº 96/61; Final Report.

216


Fonseca, P.; Campos, A. And Garcia, A. 2002. Bottom trawl codend selectivity for cephalopods in Portuguese continental waters. Fish. Res.59, 263–271.

Fonseca, P.; Martins, R.; Campos, A. and Sobral, P. 2005. Gill-net selectivity off the Portuguese western coast. Fish. Res.73:323–339.

Fonseca, P., Campos, A., and Millar, R.B. 2007. Codend selection in the deep-water crustacean trawl fishery in Portuguese southern waters. Fish. Res. 85, 49–60.

Franca, M.L.P., Martins, R. and Carneiro, M. 1998. A pesca artesanal local na costa continental portuguesa. IPIMAR, 236 p.

Gil, J., 2006. Biología y pesca del voraz (Pagellus bogareveo; Brünnich, 1768) en el Estrecho de Gibraltar. Tesis Doctoral, Universidad de Cádiz, 236 pp.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. 1999. Análisis multivariante. Prentice Hall Iberia, Madrid , 832 pp.

ICES/SGDFF, 2003. Report of the Study Group on the Development of Fishery-based Forecasts. ICES CM 2003/ACFM:08 Ref. D.

ICES/WGHMM, 2005. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Southern Shelf Stocks of Hake, Monk and Megrim (WGHMM); 12-21 May 2004 Gijón, Spain (ICES CM 2005/ACFM:02).

ICES/WGHMM, 2006. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Southern Shelf Stocks of Hake, Monk and Megrim (WGHMM); 9 - 18 May 2006 Bilbao, Spain (ICES CM 2006/ACFM:29).

ICES/WGHMSA, 2006. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Mackerel, Horse Mackerel, Sardine and Anchovy (WGMHSA); 5 - 14 September 2006, Galway, Ireland (ICES CM 2006/ACFM:36).

INE, 2006. Estatísticas da Pesca 2005. Produção primária.

INE-DGPA, 1998. Pescas em Portugal–Portuguese Fisheries: 1986-1996. Instituto Nacional de Estatística, Direcção-Geral das Pescas e Aquicultura – Lisboa: I.N.E,. 1998, 280 p.

Jabeur, C., Gobert, C. and Missaoui, H. 2000. Typologie de la flottille de pêche côtière dans le golfe de Gabès (Tunisie). Aquat. Living Resour. 13, 421-428.

Jiménez, M. P., I. Sobrino AND F. Ramos, 1998. Distribution pattern, reproductive biology and fishery of the wedge sole Dicologoglossa cuneata in the Gulf of Cadiz, south-west Spain. Marine Biology131:173-187.

Jiménez, M. P., 2002. Aplicación de análisis multivariantes para la obtención y estandorización de estandarización de esfuerzos pesqueros en pesquerías multiespecíficas. Las pesquerías demersales del Golfo de Cádiz. Tesis Doctoral, Universidad de Cádiz, 298 pp.

Jiménez, M. P., I. Sobrino AND F. Ramos, 2004. Objetives methods for defining mixed-species trawl fisheries in Spanish waters of the Gula of Cádiz. Fish. Res 67: 195-206.

Kaufman, L. and Rousseeuw, P. J. 1990. Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis. A Wiley-Interscience Publication. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York.

Lart, W. (co-ordinator) 2002. Monitoring of discarding and retention by trawl fisheries in Western Waters and the Irish Sea in relation to stock assessment and technical measures. Final Report. Contract Ref. 98/095.

Laurec, A., Biseau, A., and Charuau, A. 1991. Modelling technical interactions. ICES Marine Science Symposium, 193: 225-236.

Lewy, P. and Vinther, M. 1994. Identification of Danish North Sea trawl fisheries. ICES Journal of marine Science, 51: 263-272.

Martins, R., Cardador, F. and Sobral, M. 1990. Gillnet selectivity experiments on pout (Trisopterus luscus) in portuguese waters. ICES Doc. 1990/B:26, 7p.

Martins, R. 1996. Pesca artesanal local na costa continental Portuguesa. Dissertação para provas de acesso à categoria de Investigadora Auxiliar. IPIMAR, 178 p

Millán, M. 1992. Descripción de la pesquería de cerco de la región suratlántica española y atlántico-norte marroquí. Inf. Tec. Inst. Esp. Oceanogr., 136, 70 pp.

Millán, M. 1999. Reproductive characteristics and condition status of anchovy Engraulis encrasicolus L. from the Bay of Cadiz (SW Spain). Fisheries Research, 41: 73-86.

Morales, M., 1944. Playas de pesca. Editorial Gustavo Gili, S.A., Barcelona, 346 pp.

Monteiro, R. 1966. Hake mesh selection on the Portuguese Coast. ICES Coop. Rés. Rep. Ser. B, 53-57.

217


Muñoz, J., 1972. La pesca en la desembocadura del Guadalquivir. Observaciones geográfico-humanas sobre la supervivencia de un tipo de pesca. II Premio “José de las Cuevas”. Instituto de Estudios Gaditanos. Excma. Diputación Provincial de Cádiz. Cádiz.

Oliveira, M.F. and Moura, O. 1973. Quelques aspects de la pêcherie au chalut des côtes portugaises. CIEM Doc. C.M. 1973/ G:4, 12p.

Palma, C., Sousa, P. Ramos, J., Martinho, T., Martins, R., Pestana, G., Barros, P. and Afonso-Dias, M. 1999. Multivariate analysis of the southern Portuguese artisanal fishery: Trip types and fishing effort. ICES CM 1999/R:16, Poster.

Parente, J. 2001. Parâmetros caracterizadores do C.P.U.E- e padronização do esforço de pesca na frota de cerco costeira. Relat. Cient. Téc. Inst. Invest. Pescas Mar nº50, 16 pp.

Parente, J. 2004. Predictors of CPUE and standardization of fishing effort for the Portuguese coastal seine fleet. Fish. Res. 70: 141–159 OK

Pelletier, D. and Ferraris, J. 2000. A multivariate approach for defining fishing tbactics from commercial catch and effort data. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 57: 51-65.

Pereda, P. & Villamor, B. 1991. Artisanal fisheries in the Cantabrian sea. ICES. C.M.1991/G:30.

Pereda, Punzón, A., Landa, J. 1998. The "rasco": a gillnet fishery for Anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius L.,1758 and L. budegassa Spinola, 1807) in the Cantabrian Sea (ICES Division VIIIc). ICES CM 1998/O:46.

Pérez, N., Pereda, P., Uriarte, A., Trujillo, V., Olaso, I. and Lens, S. 1996. Descartes de la flota española en el área del ICES. Datos y resúmenes. NIPO:251-96-0.13-X).

Pérez, N., Solla, A., Araújo, H. and Santos, J.J. 2006. Informe final de pesca experimental RAI-AP-21/2005 en aguas del Cantábrico y noroeste con arte selectivo. IEO internal report.

Puente, E. 1993. La pesca artesanal en aguas costeras vascas. Servicio Central de Publicaciones del Pais Vasco. Departamento de Acuicultura y Pesca. Vitoria 191 pp.

Punzón, A., Costas, G., Gancedo, R., and Morlán, R. 2001. Segmentation of the mixed baca trawl fishery that exploits demersal resources in the Cantábrico (ICES Division VIIIc). ICES CM 2001/Q:19.

Punzón, A. and Gancedo R. 1998. Specific characterisation and identification of the fishing gears in use in the Cantabrian sea (NE Atlantic, Nothern Spain). CM 1998/U:7.

Punzón, A., Pereda, P., Villamor, B., Gancedo, R. 1999. Evolución de las pesquerías pelágicas y demersales de la flota del mar Cantábrico entre 1982 y 1994. Inf. Téc. Inst. Esp. Oceanogr. 174, 1999: 50pp.

Punzon, A. & Gancedo, R., 2000. Descripcion de las pesquerias artesanales de Cantabria y Asturias (norte de España). Inf. Tec. Inst. Esp. Oceanog., nº 179, 43 pp.

Punzón, A., B. Villamor and I. Preciado. 2004. Analysis of the handline fishery targeting mackerel (Scomber scombrus, L.) in the North of Spain (ICES Division VIIIbc). Fisheries Research 69 (2004) 189–204.

Ramalho, A.M. 1956. Sobre alguns aspectos estatísticos das pescarias demersais exploradas pela frota de arrasto na plataforma continental portuguesas (1935-1955). Notas e estudos do Inst. Biol. Mart. Lisboa, nº 9, Janeiro.

Ramos, F., Sobrino. I., Jiménez, M.P. 1995. Cartografía temática de caladeros de la flota de arrastre en el Golfo de Cádiz. Junta de Andalucía: Informaciones Técnicas, 45-96, 44 pp, 12 mapas.

Ramos, F., Sobrino, I., Silva, L., 2000. The life history of Sepia officinalis (Cephalopoda: Sepiidae) in the Gulf of Cádiz (SW Spain).CIAC 2.000, Cephalopod Biomass and Production. University of Aberdeen, Scotland, 3-7 julio de 2.000.

Ramos, F., M. Millán, I. Sobrino, 2003. Searching for a fishery-based recruitment index under situations of limited direct estimates: the case of anchovy in ICES Subdivisión IXa South. ICES CM 2004/ACFM: 08.

Rodríguez, A. 1985. Biología del langostino Penaeus kerathurus (Forsköl, 1975) del golfo de Cádiz. I: Reprodución. Investigación pesquera 50 (2): 187-202.

Ruiz, J. et al., 2006. Meteorological and oceanographic factors influencing.Engraulis encrasicolus early life stages and catches in the Gulf of Cádiz. Deep-see Research II (53): 1363-1376.

Silva, C. and Cardador F. 2006. Portuguese Trawl Fishery: Basis for fleet/fishery segmentation. Working Document presented to the WGHMM meeting, Bilbao, 9-18 May, 2006 (WD 22).

218


Silva, C. and Murta, A. 2007. Classification of the Trawl and Purse Seine fishing trips in the Portuguese Continental Waters. Working Document presented to the WGHMM meeting, Vigo, May, 2007.

Silva, L., Gil, J. and I. Sobrino, 2002a.- Definition of fleet components in the Spanish artisanal fishery of the Gulf of Cádiz (SW. Spain, ICES division Ixa). ). Fish. Res., 59: 117-128.

Silva, L., Sobrino, I., Ramos, F., 2002b. Reproductive biology of common octopus (Octopus vulgaris,Cephalopoda: Octopodidae) in the Gulf of Cádiz (SW Spain). Bull. of Mar. Sci., 71(2): 837-850.

Silva L. et al., 2003. Distribición espacio-temporal del langostino Melicertus kerathurus (Forsköl, 1775) en la desembocadura del Gualdalquivir. Bol. Inst. Esp. Oceanogr. 19 (1-4): 41-47.

Silva L. and Sobrino, I., 2005. Las pesquerías de cefalópodos en el Golfo de Cádiz. En: “ Acuicultura, Pesca y Marisqueo en el Golfo de Cádiz”. Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Agricultura y Pesca. Depósito Legal: SE-6014-05.

Silva L. et al., 2006. Exploitation pattern of the artisanal fleet in the area of the Guadalquivir river mouth (Gulf of Cádiz, SW Spain). Thalassas 22 (1): 39-44.

Silva, L.; J. Castro, A Punzón, E. Abad, J.J. Acosta and M. Marín. 2007. Metiers of the Southern Atlantic Spanish bottom trawl fleet (Gulf of Cádiz). WD05 presented at ICES WGHMM07.

Sobrino I., Jimenez, M.P., Ramos, F., Baro, J., 1.994. Descripción de las pesquerías demersales de la región española del Golfo de Cádiz. Inf. Téc. Inst Esp Oceanogr. 151: 1-79.

Sobrino, I., 1998. Biología y pesca de la gamba blanca (Parapenaeus longirostris, Lucas 1846) en el Atlántico nororiental. Tesis Doctoral, Universidad de Sevilla, 218 pp.

Sobrino, I., Silva, L., Bellido, J.M. and Ramos, F., 2002. Relationship between common octopus and cuttlefish landings and environmental parameters in the Gulf of Cádiz (SW Spain). Bulletin of Marine Science,71(2):851-865

Sobrino et al., 2003. Informe Técnico de la Campaña de Arrastre Demersal Suratlántica “ARSA 0303”. Informe interno dirigido a la Subdirección del IEO.

Sobrino et al., 2004. Informe Técnico de la Campaña de Arrastre Demersal Suratlántica “ARSA 0304”. Informe interno dirigido a la Subdirección del IEO.

Sobrino et al., 2005a. Estudio previo para la delimitación de una Reserva de Pesca en la desembocadura del Guadalquivir. Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Agricultura y Pesca. Depósito Legal: SE-2124-05.

Sobrino et al., 2005b. Informe Técnico de la Campaña de Arrastre Demersal Suratlántica “ARSA 0305”. Informe interno dirigido a la Subdirección del IEO.

STECF, 1994. Report of the Southern Hake Task Force. Lisbon (Portugal), 10-14 October 1994. SEC(94) 2231.

STECF/SGMOS, 2003. Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries Subgroup on Management Objectives (SGMOS) -Recovery plans of Southern hake and Iberian Norway lobster stocks. 9 – 13 June, IPIMAR Headquarter, Lisbon. Commission Staff Working Paper SEC (2004) 178; 109 pp.

STECF/SGRST, 2002. Report of the Subgroup on Resource Status (SGRST) of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). Mixed Fisheries. Brussels, 22-26 October 2002. SEC(2002) 1373.



STECF/SGRST, 2005. Report of the Subgroup on Resource Status (SGRST) of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). Mixed Fisheries. Ispra, Italy, 17-21 October 2005.

Struyf, A., Hubert, M. and Rousseeuw, P.J. 1996. Clustering in an Object-Oriented Environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 1:4, pp. 1-30.

TECTAC, 2006. Technological developments and tactical adaptations of important EU fleets. EC 5th Framework Project, QLRT-2001-01291.

Ulrich, C., Andersen, B.S., Hovgård, H., Sparre, P., Murta, A., Garcia, D. and Castro, J. 2006. Fleet-based short-term advice in mixed fisheries - the F3 approach. Oral presentation at the "ICES

219


Symposium on Management Strategies: Case Studies of Innovation", Galway (Ireland), 27-30 June 2006.

Velasco, F.; Silva, L.; and Sobrino, I. (2003) Exploring the hake Fishery in the Gulf of Cadiz: available information to perform a stock assessment. Working Document presented to the WGHMH 2003, Copenhagen 14-24 May, 2003.

Vila, Y., M.P. Jiménez and I. Sobrino, 2002. Reproductive biology of Dicologoglossa cuneata (Moreau, 1881) in three zones of Atlantic Iberian Coast. Thalassas, 18(1): 18-29.

Villamor, B., Porteiro, C., Lucio, P., 1994. Distribution and seasonality of mackerel (Scomber scombrus,L.) in the Cantabrian Sea and Galician waters (ICES Division VIIIc and Sub-Division IXa North) ICES CM 1994/Mini: 18.

Villamor, B., Abaunza, P., Lucio, P., Porteiro, C. 1997. Distribution and age structure of mackerel (Scomber scombrus, L.) and horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus, L.) in the northern coast of Spain, 1989–1994. Scientia Marina 61 (3), 345–366.

Vinther, M., St. A. Reeves and K. R. Patterson. 2004. From single-species advice to mixed-species management: taking the next step. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 61: 1398-1409.

Wise, L., Ferreira, M. and Silva, A. 2005. Caracterização da Pesca de Cerco na Costa Oeste Portuguesa. Relat.Cient. Téc. IPIMAR, Série digital (http://ipimar-iniap.ipimar.pt), nº 24, 19 p.

220

Annex I

Gear descriptions

IBERMIX final report Annex I

Figure I.1. The “JURELERA” gear used by the Northern Spanish coastal OTB fleet (Pérez et

al., 2006).

I

Annex I IBERMIX final report

Figure I.2. The “4 SIDES” gear used by the Northern Spanish coastal OTB fleet (Pérez et

al., 2006).

II


Figure I.3. The “RASPITA” gear used by the Northern Spanish coastal OTB fleet (Pérez et

al., 2006).

III


Figure I.4. Gear used by the Northern Spanish coastal purse seine fleet (Puente, 1993).

IV


Figure I.5. Gear used by the Northern Spanish coastal set longline fleet (Puente, 1993).

V


Figure I.6. Gear used by the Northern Spanish coastal set gillnet fleet: “BETA” and

“VOLANTA” (Puente, 1993).

VI


Figure I.7. The “RASCO” gear used by the Northern Spanish coastal set gillnet fleet (Puente,

1993).

VII


Figure I.8. One of the gear types used by the Northern Spanish coastal trammel net fleet:

“MIÑO” (Puente, 1993).

VIII


Figure I.9. Gear used by the Southern Spanish coastal purse seine fleet (L. Silva).

IX


Figure I.10. Gear used by the Southern Spanish coastal longline fleet: voracera (Anon.,

2004).

X


Figure I.11. Gear used by the Southern Spanish coastal set gillnet fleet: acedía (A. Juárez).

Figure I.12. Gear used by the Southern Spanish coastal trammel fleet: langostino (A.

Juárez).

XI


Figure I.13. Gulf of Cádiz artisanal fisheries. Schematic diagram and method of deployment

of the clay-pots ("alcatruz") for common octopus (Anon., 2004).

XII


Figure I.14. Gulf of Cádiz artisanal fisheries. Schematic diagram and methods of

deployment of traps ("nasa") for fish-cephalopod (common octopus) (Anon., 2004).

XIII

Appendix II

European and national regulations

IBERMIX final report Annex II

European Regulations:

Technical measures:

- Council Regulation (EC) 850/98 and amendments by Regulations (CE) nº 308/1999,

nº 1459/1999, nº 2723/1999, nº 1298/2000, nº 724/2001 and nº 2166/2005- for

the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection

of juveniles of marine organisms. Includes gear and mesh regulations, closed

seasons/areas, minimum landing sizes.

Fleet and Fishing effort:

- Commission Regulation (EC) 2091/98 - concerning the segmentation of the

Community fishing fleet and fishing effort in relation to the multiannual guidance

programmes.

Data collection

- Council Regulation (EC) 1543/2000 - establishing a Community framework for the

collection and management of the data needed to conduct the common fisheries

policy.

- Commission Regulation (EC) 1639/2001 - establishing the minimum and extended

Community programmes for the collection of data in the fisheries sector and laying

down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) 1543/2000.

- Commission Regulation (EC) No 1581/2004 - amending Regulation (EC) 1639/2001

establishing the minimum and extended Community programmes for the collection of

data in the fisheries sector and laying down detailed rules for the application of

Council Regulation (EC) No 1543/2000.

TACs and quotas, fishing effort limitations:

- Council Regulation (EC) 2341/2002 - fixing for 2003 the fishing opportunities and

associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in

Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are

required




required

I

Annex II IBERMIX final report




required. Includes, for the first time, limitations on fishing effort for vessels in the

context of the recovery of certain Southern Hake and Nephrops stock (Annex IVb).

- Council Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 - fixing for 2006 the fishing opportunities and



required. Includes limitations on fishing effort for vessels in the context of the

recovery of certain Southern hake and Nephrops stocks.

Recovery plan:

- Council Regulation (EC) 2166/2005 - establishing measures for the recovery of the

Southern hake and Norway lobster stocks in the Cantabrian Sea and Western Iberian

peninsula and amending Regulation (EC) No 850/98 for the conservation of fishery

resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine

organisms.

Spanish National Regulations (Northern area)

Regulations on fishing activities and gear:

Order 30th July 1983: it prohibits of trawling in waters less than 100 m deep.

Order 25th July 2001: it establishes the closed areas for bottom trawling in Spanish

territorial waters.

Order APA/16/2002 (2nd January 2002): it limits the trawl fishing time at 18 hours

per day (it is mandatory to keep 6 hours of no fishing activity during the night time

period). The minimum mesh size on the codend of any trawl gear is 55 mm.

Real Decreto 410/2001 (20th April 2001): it establishes the conditions for the use of

static fishing gears in the Cantabrian Sea and NW Spain. Effort limitation: maximun

of 5 fishing days per week (the gears must be hauled and transported to port during

48 hours/week):

o “Volanta” (Gillnet): minimum mesh size of 90 mm. Maximum length of 7,000

metres per boat. Maximum stretched net height of 10 m.

II


o “Betas” (small gillnets): minimum mesh size of 80 mm for hake. Maximum

length of 4,500 metres per boat. Maximum stretched net height of 3 m.

o Bottom longline: maximum number of hook of 4,000. Maximum longline

length: 15,000 m. Minimum size of hook for hake: Length of 3.85 ± 1.15;

Gap of 1.60 ± 0.40

Order 26th July 2001:

a) it establishes the conditions for the use of “beta” (small gillnets) in Cantabria

and Asturias regions (Cantabrian Sea). Fishing depth: between 25 and 100

m. Only one setting of nets per day. Fishing at night is not allowed.

b) it establishes the conditions for the of gillnets in Vizcaya and Guipúzcoa

provinces belonging to the Basque region (Cantabrian Sea). Gear length: in

Guipúzcoa 3,000 m for boats under 10 m long; 4,500 m for boats with length

equal or above 10 m. “Volanta” (gillnets of more than 90 mm mesh size) is

not allowed in the 12 miles zone between 3º 8.8’ W and 2º 56.1’ W. Gillnets

of smaller mesh size than 90 mm are not allowed to remain set during the

night between Cap Villano and 3º 8.8’ W and 2º 35.0’ W.

Real Decreto 14241/1999 (10th September 1999): it prohibits the use of pelagic

trawls.

Closed areas/seasons:

Order of 25th July 2001 (BOE 183/15024) updates and establishes the closed areas

affecting the “Caladero Nacional del Cantábrico y noroeste” (Divisions VIIIc and

Northern IXa). In addition, there is a general band for trawling in waters under the

isobath of 100 m all along the Spanish Northern and Northwestern coast (Div. VIIIc

and Northern IXa).

Spanish National Regulations (Gulf of Cádiz)

RD 632/1993 (BOE nº 118; 3rd May): trawl fishing regulations of the Gulf of Cádiz.

Prohibits the catch of anchovy by trawl gear.

RD 1428/1997 (BOE nº 235; 15th September): regulation of the Gulf of Cádiz fleet

that operates with fixed fishing gears (license for minor-gear fleet): includes trammel

and gillnets, as well as hook and trap fishing. Management of the Gulf of Cádiz fleet

using traps and pots: depth not over 70-80 m, maximum number of clay pots per

vessel is set to 1000, while for traps it is set to 250.

III


Order 28th January 2000 (BOJA nº 23): regulation of the Gulf of Cádiz dredge fleet.

Order APA/3423/2004 (22nd October, BOE nº 256): management measures

implemented at the end of 2004, which contemplates a closed season of 45 days in

the fourth quarter (from 25/10 to 8/12).

Order 16th June 2004 (BOJA nº 123): protected areas as Fishing Reserve established

in front of the National Park of Doñana, in which the mesh size for the meagre is set

from 80-140 mm and from 55-65 mm for seabream and seabass, respectively.

Order APA/50/2005 (BOE nº 19; 20th January): management of “piedrabola” gear for

targeting silver scabbardfish (Lepidopus caudatus).

RD 284/2006 (10th March): modifications of RD 1428/1997 regarding characteristics

of the drifting longlines.

Order APA/3239/2006 (BOE nº 251; 13th October): Gulf of Cadiz Fishing Plan for the

purse seine fishery: enforcement of closed season of 60 days during the fourth

trimester of the year, 5 fishing days per week and the limitation of catch for the two

target species, anchovy and sardine.

Order APA 8/2006 (BOE nº 12; 12th January): management of the “voracera” gear

for targeting blackspot seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo) locally called “voraz”.

Regulation of technical characteristics of the gear, fishing grounds, minimum size,

authorized vessels and effort related aspects are covered Furthermore, a closed area

and biological stop of 60 days is enforced during the first trimester of the year.

Order 23rd January 2007 (BOJA nº 22): management of the striped venus clam

fishing grounds. Currently, these are fixed to 200 kg for dredges and to 100 kg for

teeth bar dredges. Moreover, a closed season of 45 days was set for the second

trimester of the year.

Portuguese National Regulations

Regulations on fishing activities and gear:

- Decreto-Regulamentar nº 7/2000 – regulates fishing in marine continental waters,

including estuaries

- Portaria 1102-C/2000 – regulates fishing with lines and hooks

- Portaria 1102-D/2000 – regulates fishing with traps

- Portaria 1102-E/2000 – regulates fishing with trawl

- Portaria 1102-G/2000 – regulates fishing with purse-seine

IV


- Portaria 1102-H /2000 – regulates fishing with gill-nets

- Portaria 1557-A/2002 – regulates the use of mesh sizes of 55 mm and 70 mm in the

crustacean trawl fishery, temporarily for the year 2003.

- Portaria 1423-B/2003 – changes the Portaria 1102-E/2000, to introduce the licensing

for the mesh sizes of 55 mm and 70 mm in the crustacean trawl fishery. Vessels

licensed for trawl with mesh size >= 55 mm are not allowed to be licensed for any

other gear.

Closed areas/seasons:

- Portaria 296/94 (revised by Portaria 698-A/96) – establishes a closed area between

Arrifana and Milfontes applied to all gears, from 1 December to the last day of

February.

- Portaria 213/2001 – establishes a permanent closed area for gillnets in the fishing

ground “Beirinha”, in Algarve, aiming to protect the spawning stock of hake.

- Portaria 1557-A/2002 – experimental seasonal ban for crustacean trawl in the period

1-31 January 2003.

- Portaria 1142/2004 – introduces seasonal bans for crustacean trawl, in the periods

January-February and from 24 to 31 December. Introduces a closed season for

Nephrops fishing from 15 September to 15 October.

- Portaria 43/2006 – revokes the Portaria 1142/2004, taking into consideration the

implementation of the Recovery Plan for Southern Hake and Iberian Nephrops

stocks. Introduces a seasonal ban for crustacean trawl, from 1 to 31 January each

year.

Minimum Landing Sizes:

- Portaria 27/2001 (updated by Portaria 402/2002) – establishes the minimum landing

size for most of the fish, crustacean and mollusc species caught in Portuguese

waters.

V


Figure Annex II-1. Existing Spanish and Portuguese closed areas.

A - Fuenterrabía - Trawl prohibited all year - BOE n.183, 1st August 2001, 15024

B - Guetaria - Trawl prohibited from 1st September to 31st December - BOE n.183, 1st August 2001, 15024

C - Bermeo - Trawl prohibited all year - BOE n.183, 1st August 2001, 15024

D - Llanes - Trawl prohibited all year - BOE n.183, 1st August 2001, 15024

E - El Callejón and La Carretera - Trawl prohibited from 1st September to 31st March - BOE n.183, 1st August 2001, 15024

F - La Coruña-Cedeira - Trawl prohibited from 1st October to 1st January - BOE n.183, 1st August 2001, 15024 and Reg. CE 724/2001

G - Milfontes-Arrifana - Trawl prohibited from 1st December to last day of February - Reg. CE 850/98

Spain:

Portugal:

36 º

38 º

40 º

42 º

44 º

36º

38º

40º

42º

44º

12º 10º 8º 6º 4º 2º 0º

12º 10º 8º 6º 4º 2º 0º

VIIIc

IXa

ABC

DEF

G

100

m

200

m

1000

m

VI

Annex III

FAO codes for species and gears

IBERMIX final report Annex III

Table III-1. Table of the species dealt with in the IBERMIX project: Scientific name, FAO

code, and their common names in English, Spanish and Portuguese.

Scientific name English common name Spanish common name Portuguese common name AL3

Aphanopus carbo Black scabbardfish Sable negro Peixe-espada preto BSF

Argyrosomus regius Meagre Corvina Corvina Legítima MGR

Aristaeopsis edwardsiana Scarlet shrimp Carabinero Cardeal SSH

Aristeus antennatus Red Shrimp Gamba rosada Camarão Vermelho ARA

Balistidae Triggerfishes Pez Cochino Cangulos TRI

Belone belone Garfish Aguja GAR

Boops boops Bogue Boga Boga BOG

Brama brama Atlantic pomfret Japuta Xaputa POA

Callista chione Smooth callista Almejón de sangre. Ameijola KLK

Cancer pagurus Edible crab Buey Sapateira CRE

Caranx rhonchus False scad Jurel Charro Amarelo HMY

Centrophorus squamosus Leafscale gulper shark Quelvacho negro Lixa GUQ

Chamelea gallina Striped venus clam Almeja Pé de Burrinho SVE

Citharus linguatula Spotted flounder Tapaculo Carta-de-bico CIL

Conger conger European conger Congrio Congro COE

Dentex canariensis Canary dentex Vieja Dentão-quissanga DEN

Dentex dentex Common dentex Sama Capatão Legítimo DEC

Dentex gibbosus Pink dentex Pargo Capatão-de-bandeira DEP

Dicentrachus labrax Seabass Lubina Robalo Legítimo BSS

Dicologoglossa cuneata Wedge sole Acedia Língua CET

Diplodus sargus White seabream Sargo Sargo Legítimo SWA

Diplodus spp Sea breams Sargo Sargo SRG

Diplodus vulgaris Two-banded sea bream Pajel Sargo Safia CTB

Engraulis encrasicolus Anchovy Boquerón Biqueirão ANE

Epinephelus guaza Dusky grouper Mero Mero Legitimo GPD

Galeorhinus galeus Tope shark Cazón Perna De Moca GAG

Galeus melastomus Blackmouth catshark Pintarroja bocanegra Leitão SHO

Homarus gammarus Lobster Bogavante Lavagante LBE

Lepidopus caudatus Silver scabbarfish Sable Peixe Espada SFS

Lepidorhombus boscii Four spot megrim Gallo Areeiro de Quatro Manchas LDB

Lepidorhombus spp. Megrims Gallos Areeiro LEZ

Lepidorhombus wiffiagonis Megrim Gallo del norte Areeiro MEG

Lithognathus mormyrus Striped sea bream Herrera Ferreira SSB

Loliginidae, Ommastrephidae Squids Calamares Lulas, Potas SQU

Loligo vulgaris European squid Calamar Lula SQC

Lophius budegassa Black anglerfish Rape negro Tamboril Preto ANK

Lophius piscatorius White anglerfish Rape blanco Tamboril MON

Lophius spp. Anglerfish Rapes Tamboris MNZ

Maja squinado Spiny spider crab Centolla Santola SCR

Melicertus kerathurus Caramote prawn Langostino Camarão-da-Quarteira TGS

Merluccius merluccius Hake Merluza Pescada HKE

I

Annex III IBERMIX final report


Microchirus spp. Thickback soles Golletas Azevias THS

Micromesistius poutassou Blue whiting Bacaladilla Verdinho WHB

Moridae Moras Moras Moras MOR

Mullus spp Striped red and red mullet Salmonete Salmonetes MUX

Mullus surmuletus Red mullet Salmonete de roca Salmonete Legitimo MUR

Muraenidae Mediterranean moray Morena Moreia MUI

Nephrops novergicus Norway lobster Cigala Lagostim NEP

Octopodidae Octopus Pulpo Polvos OCT

Octopus vulgaris Common octopus Pulpo Polvo Vulgar OCC

Pagellus acarne Auxilary seabrean Aligote Besugo SBA

Pagellus bellottii Red pandora Breca colorada/ pagel Bica Buço PAR

Pagellus bogaraveo Blackspot seabream Voraz Goraz SBR

Pagellus erythrinus Common pandora Breca Bica PAC

Pagellus spp. Pandoras nei Brecas Besugos, bicas e gorazes PAX

Pagrus auriga Red-banded sea bream Urta Pargo Sêmola REA

Pagrus pagrus Black sea brean Bocinegro Pargo Legitimo RPG

Palinurus elephas Spiny lobster Langosta Lagosta Castanha CRW

Parapenaeus longirostris Deepwater rose shrimp Gamba blanca Gamba branca DPS

Phycis blenoides Greater forkbeard Brótola de fango Abrótea do Alto GFB

Phycis phycis Forkbeard Brótola de roca Abrótea da Costa FOR

Phycis spp. Forkbeards Brótolas FOX

Plectorhinchus mediterraneus Rubber-lip grunt Borriquete Pombo GBR

Pollachius pollachius Pollack Abadejo Juliana POL

Polyprion americanus Atlantic wreckfish Cherna Cherne Legítimo WRF

Pomadasys incisus Bastard grunt Roncaor Roncador Bravura BGR

Pomatomus saltatrix Bluefish Chova Anchova BLU

Prionace glauca Blue shark Tintorera Tintureira BSH

Raja spp Skates/Rays Raya Raias SKA

Sardina pilchardus Sardine Sardina Sardinha PIL

Scomber japonicus Chub/Spanish mackerel Estornino Cavala MAS

Scomber scombrus Atlantic mackerel Caballa Sarda MAC

Scomber spp Mackerels Caballas Cavalas e sardas MAZ

Scorpaena scrofa Red scorpionfish Cabracho Rascasso vermelho RSE

Sepia officinalis Common cuttlefish Choco Choco vulgar CTC

Seriola dumerili Greater amberjack Pez Limón Charuteiro Catarino AMB

Solea lascaris Sand sole Lenguado de arena Linguado da Areia SOS

Solea spp Soles nei Lenguado Linguados SOX

Solea vulgaris Common sole Lenguado Linguado-legítimo SOL

Solenidae Razor clams Navajas Longueirões, Canivetes SOI

Sparus aurata Gilthead seabream Dorada Dourada SBG

Spisula solida Solid surf clam Clica Ameijoa Branca ULO

Spondyliosoma cantharus Black sea brean Chopa Choupa BRB

Squalus spp Dogfish shaks Escualos Galhudos DGZ

Squilla mantis Mantis shrimp Galera Zagaia-castanheta MTS

II

IBERMIX final report Annex III


Thunnus alaunga Albacore Bonito Atum voador ALB

Thunnus thynnus Atlantic bluefin tuna Atún Atum rabilho BFT

Trachinotus ovatus Derbio, Pompano Palometa Sereia camochilo POP

Trachurus spp Horse mackereles Jureles Carapaus JAX

Trachurus trachurus Horse mackerel Jurel Carapau HOM

Trisopterus luscus Pouting(=Bib) Faneca Faneca BIB

Umbrina spp Drums nei Corva Calafates UBS

Xiphias gladius Swordfish Pez espada Espadarte SWO

Zeus faber John dory Pez de San Pedro Galo negro JOD

III

Annex III IBERMIX final report

Table III-2. Table of the gears dealt with in the IBERMIX project: FAO code, and their

technical names in English, Spanish and Portuguese.

English gear name Spanish gear name Portuguese gear name FAO code

Bottom ottter trawl Arrastre de fondo con puertas Arrasto de fundo com portas OTB

Bottom pair trawl Arrastre de fondo a la pareja Arrasto de parelha PTB

Drifting longline Palangre de superficie Palangre de superfície LLD

Driftnet Redes de deriva Redes de emalhar derivantes GND

gear unidentified Arte sin identificar Não identificadas NK

Hand and pole lines Línea de mano Cana e linha de mão LHP

Mechanised/Suction Dredge Rastras Dragas mecânicas HMD

Pelagic pair trawl Arrastre pelágico a la pareja Arrasto pelágico de parelha PTM

Pots and traps Trampas y nasas Armadilhas de abrigo FPO

Purse seine Cerco Cerco PS

Set gillnet Enmalle de fondo Emalhar de fundo GNS

Set long line Palangre de fondo Palangre de fundo LLS

Trammel nets Trasmallo Tresmalho de fundo GTR

Trolling lines Curricán Corrico LTL

IV

Documents

IDENTIFICATION AND - ec. · PDF fileIDENTIFICATION AND ... PAM Partitioning Around Medoids ... maximum quantities of fish or total allowable catches (TACs) which are divided among