No more reason for ignoring gelatinous zooplankton in ecosystem assessment and marine management: concrete cost-effective methodology during routine fishery trawl surveys
Aubert, A.; Antajan, E.; Lynam, C.; Pitois, S.; Pliru, A.; Vaz, S.; Thibault, D. (2018). No more reason for ignoring gelatinous zooplankton in ecosystem assessment and marine management: concrete cost-effective methodology during routine fishery trawl surveys. Mar. Policy 89: 100-108. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.12.010 In: Marine Policy. Elsevier: UK. ISSN 0308-597X; e-ISSN 1872-9460, more |  |
| Keyword | | | Author keywords | Gelatinous zooplankton; Jellyfish; Monitoring; Trawl; Marine management; MSFD |
| Authors | | Top | - Aubert, A., more
- Antajan, E.
- Lynam, C.
- Pitois, S.
| - Pliru, A.
- Vaz, S.
- Thibault, D.
| |
| Abstract | Gelatinous zooplankton, including cnidarians, ctenophores, and tunicates (appendicularians, pyrosomes, salps and doliolids), are often overlooked by scientific studies, ecosystem assessments and at a management level. Despite the important economic consequences that they can have on human activities and on the marine food-web, arguments often related to the costs of monitoring or their coordination, or simply negligence, have resulted in the absence of relevant monitoring programs. A cost-effective protocol has been applied on trawling from existing fishery surveys conducted by national laboratories in England and France. The testing phase has successfully demonstrated the adequacy of such a tool to sample macro- and mega-zooplankton gelatinous organisms in a cost-effective way. This success has led to the acceptance of this protocol into the French implementation of the EU's Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). Here, a protocol which can be applied to any trawl-based fishery survey and in any new large-scale monitoring program is provided. As an ecosystem approach to marine management is currently adopted, exemplified by the MSFD in Europe, gelatinous zooplankton should be monitored correctly to prevent a knowledge gap and bias to ecosystem assessments in future. |
|
