Page History

This page

...

describes the outline and reasoning behind the template headings used for each individual indicator.

 Indicator summary

Two tables....any more info needed here?? to explain them?The two tables that are used on the pages are separated into an indicator function and structure summary and examples of current status and trends of an indicator and how it is used for ecosystem management.

Definition and/or background

Individual indicators

• Indicators can be used to present the data in a way that represents the broader significance or implications of the data compared to the raw data on its own (Vandermeulen 1998).

• Can be a useful tool within management frameworks for purposes of communication and decision making (Vandermeulen 1998).

• Can provide information on trends in the conditions of a phenomenon and has significance extending beyond that associated with the properties of the statistics itself (Vandermeulen 1998).

Simple indicators have been found out perform more complex (model based) ones, which are sensitive to data quality (Fulton et al 2005, Link 2005).

There is consensus on the need for multiple rather than a single indicator and on the types of indicators that perform well regardless of system type (Medley et al 2009).For each indicator a definition of what that indicator is and any background information on that indicator that would be useful should be included in this section.

For example on a page about indicators in general the following would be appropriate -

"Ecosystem indicators are generally accepted as tools for evaluating ecosystem status and trends (e.g. Shin & Shannon 2010, Shin et al. 2010a,b), identifying key ecosystem processes (e.g. Ojaveer & Eero 2011), serving as signals that something is happening beyond what is actually measured (NRC 2000), and assessing the impacts of human activities and climate forcing (e.g. Coll et al. 2010, Link et al. 2010b, Ojaveer & Eero 2011)." (Fu et al 2012). Indicators can be a useful tool within management frameworks for purposes of communication and decision making (Vandermeulen 1998). Indicators can provide information on trends in the conditions of a phenomenon and has significance extending beyond that associated with the properties of the statistics itself (Vandermeulen 1998). Simple indicators have been found out perform more complex (model based) ones, which are sensitive to data quality (Fulton et al 2005, Link 2005). Indicator performance can be quantified by the ability to detect and/or predict trends in key variables of interest (attributes) (Fulton et al 2005).

Community indicators in fisheries - the criteria used for the evaluation of these indicators are (Rochet and Trenkel 2003):

...

(There is consensus on the need for multiple rather than a single indicator and on the types of indicators that perform well regardless of system type (Medley et al 2009).

 Fulton et al., (2005; ) and Link , (2005) has have shown that it is critical that:

...

• are directly impacted;
• have high turnover rates, which may provide a noisy but early warning;
• define the habitat, as these often have a disproportionate or keystone role in the system; and
• are from the upper trophic level, which are typically both vulnerable in their own right due to their life history characteristics, but also integrative of pressures and patterns at large scales. 

Attribute

Possible examples of ecological attribute(s) that are related to each indicator includes (Fulton et al 2004)An ecological attributes is an aspect of an assemblage or community that correspond to the structure and function of that assemblage or community, which is used to determine the type and extent of its short term and long term impacts on its environment.

In this section list any attributes that are related to this indicator.

Examples of ecological attributes (from  Fulton et al (2004)) include:

• ecosystem structure -
  
• ecosystem function
• community structure
• community function
• Eutrophication
• trophic shifts
• trophic structure
• habitat quality
• discard availability
• population structure
• predator-prey balance
• community heterogeneity
• habitat condition
  
• efficiency of by-catch reduction measures 

Add a definition for each of the above

Purpose

Pick one or more of the following:

• fisheries
• seabirds/penguins
• mammals
• phytoplankton
•  ....others??

Taxa

Data required

...

Purpose

What area is this indicator aiming to inform? What is the purpose of the indicator?

The idea of this section was to inform whether the indicator has been developed for fisheries or something else. Most of the indicator literature I could find to begin with only dealt with fisheries. I wanted somewhere in the table for a quick reference to see which ones are for fisheries and which are for some other management use.

Taxa

List any taxa that this indicator may be restricted to or if there are any taxa that are particularly suited to this indicator.

This taxa section should include links to any biota profiles that are relevant to the indicator.

Data required

List any data that is required to calculate this indicator?.

Ecosystem applicability

...

where Indicators can this indicator be used? all over or just locally ie:

...

be limited to a certain ecological area depending on the type of data that is required or they can be used across all ecosystem. Many indicators are still being development and their use across all ecosystems is still in review based on data available and the types of ecosystems that the indicator was initially developed for. This section is intended to highlight any ecosystems that an indicator is not suited to, has not been tested for, or if it is suitable to be used in all ecosystems.

Identified capability

explain how defining demonstrable from aspirational indicators.

...

Biological classification level

For each indicator the biological classification level is given, it can be more that one if appropriate.

The indicators listed in this wiki are classified into hierarchical levels of organisation (based on those described by Fulton et al (2004)) and then subdivided into drivers, ??themes?? and finally into individual indicators. The top five level of classification . The biological classification levels are species, population, assemblage, community, and ecosystem. Fulton et al (2004) do not include a species level but does include an individual level which they describe as being highly restricted and of uncertain benefit.

...

This individual level has been renames species in this wiki.

The species level focuses on behavioural and metabolic responses (Fulton et al 2004).

...

• (e.g. mortality rate, exploitation rate, or average length) are the most operationally useful indicators because their meaning is clear and the expected effect of fisheries on them is well understood, , ie. reference points can be set (Rochet and Trenkel 2003).
• first step from single-species to community assessment and management. These indicators have the goal of preserving population states, structures and dynamics (Rochet and Trenkel 2003).

The assemblage level refer to populations living together in a biotope, ignoring interactions. These indicators describe the range of populations and the distribution of their characteristics that may be effected by fishing (Rochet and Trenkel 2003). The goal of these indicators is to preserve diverse assemblages.The community level concentrates on species richness, diversity and habitat structure and is primarily concerned with community and trophic structure and the processes or environmental conditions that support these structures (Fulton et al 2004). Community indicators according to Rochet and Trenkel (2003) are networks of interacting populations or individuals. The goals of these indicators are to assess the effect of fishing on the interactions, the tropic paths, and the biomass flows in the community and for the preserving of the above functions of the community (Rochet and Trenkel 2003).

There are some problems with community indicators (Fulton et al 2004) including that:

• they do not only respond to changes in fishing but also to changes in natural regime shifts and eutrophication
  
• fisheries dependent data can be bias by shifts in market forcing and technology advances
• reference points are not easily identified because need unexploited regions to determine the reference points, of which there are few.

from definition page for community indicators:

• are networks of interacting populations or individuals
• the goals of these indicators is to assess the effect of fishing on the interactions, the tropic paths, and the biomass flows in the community
• and for the preserving of the above functions of the community (Rochet and Trenkel 2003). 
• ways of using community indicators:
  • do not worry about using reference points and instead examine whether the indicator is currently changing
  • determine theoretical reference points
  • develop an empirical reference system, which can be developed by gathering indicator estimates from several communities

The ecosystem level includes entire ecosystem processes such as production or overall tropic structure and include indicators such as productivity, nutrient cycling and diversity. There have been very few ecosystem studies completed and therefore most ecosystem indicators have been developed from ecological theory or from ecosystem models (Fulton et al 2004). The types of ecosystem indicators include:

• estimates of changes in the community biomass as a result of fishing down the food web (FIB)
• measures of productivity
• departure of Redfield ratio ???
  
• ratio of biomass of demersal and pelagic species.

There are some problems with ecosystem indicators including, that they are not good early warning indicators, are less sensitive to change and the best indicators are entirely based on models. These models are still in development and need more rigorous scrutiny therefore indicators may not be as robust as lower level indicators (Fulton et al 2004). There are also some good aspects to ecosystem indicators; they are good at describing ecosystem health and are more suited to performance reporting than to decision making (Fulton et al 2004).

Response variables

........

Size-based indicators (SBIs) -

...

The drivers as described in various studies (eg Fu et al 2012; Pranovi et al 2012 and Link et al 2010) are anthropogenic, trophodynamic and environmental. These three drivers are the main processes that regulate the production dynamics of a marine ecosystem (Link et al 2010). There are plenty of studies that have shown who how each of these drivers acts singly on a system and only recently have studies begun to look at multiple drivers assessed simultaneously (Link et al 2010). The driver can be divided into two types; anthropogenic and environmental drivers are external to the ecosystem and whereas trophodynamic drivers are not. As a result of this relationship anthropogenic and environmental driver can strongly influence trophodynamic drivers in an marine ecosystem (Pranovi et al 2012).

The anthropogenic drivers (also called fisheries

...

)

• encompasses fisheries exploitation.
  
• They tend to be related to catch-based indicators (Fu et al 2012).
•  Fisheries drivers can be derived from the catch time series for an ecosystem . (Fu et al 2012).
  
• These can be analysed on a species basis, in feeding guilds, or by combining feeding guilds .  (Fu et al 2012).

The trophodynamic drivers (also called trophodynamic interactions)

• tend to be related to the mean tropic level of the community . (Fu et al 2012).
  
• Can also be called trophodynamic interactions.
•  
• include time series related to predator-prey of fishes species . (Fu et al 2012).
• used to examine bottom up and top down effects on fisheries production . (Fu et al 2012).
  

The environmental drivers (also called biophysical)

• looks at local and basin scale climate factors.
  
• Temperature one of the strongest environmental drivers. (Fu et al 2012).
• represent thermal or broad-scale oceanographic features that are influential in an ecosystem. (Fu et al 2012).
• examples include: SST, various ocean oscillation and indexes, stratification, freshwater discharge, sea ice cover.

Robustness

The robustness level of each indicator is based on the definition outlined in Fulton et al (2004) Final Report.

The following if from Fulton et al 2004a -

Many of the descriptions of the different types of indicators given below refer to a robustness rating. This is a subjective rating (low, medium, high), given to each indicator reviewed by Fulton et al. (2004a), that was based on a literature review (and where necessary an expert judgement) on the conceptual foundation, feasibility of implementation, ease of accurate collection, sensitivity, exclusiveness, comprehensiveness and clarity of potential indicators (Jackson et al. 2000, ICES 2001, Rochet and Trenkel 2003, Fulton et al. 2004a, Niemi et al. 2004, Rice and Rochet 2004, Rochet and Rice 2004). While some preliminary indicator assessment frameworks were trialed during the early stages of this project, in collaboration with members of the SCOR working group 9 (WG9) on the quantitative indicators of the ecological effects of fishing, the ratings ultimately subjective, as no tested quantitative selection criteria existed when the review took place. The final form of the SCOR WG9 indicator evaluation framework does appear to show substantial promise, but they have come too late for inclusion in this study.

...

In general, a poor rating based on this subjective system did mean an indicator was dropped from further consideration by simulation testing. However, if an indicator has been strongly advocated in the past, is already widely used, or if field work had indicated that it may actually have potential, then it was included (if possible given the form of the model) regardless of rating.

is there were could include discussion about type I and II errors...or are we talking statistical errors in calculating the indicator? or both?

Current status and trends

...