The U.S. Gulf of Mexico pink shrimp, Farfantepenaeus duorarum, fishery: 50 years of commercial catch statistics.
|Abstract:||S. Gulf of Mexico, pink shrimp, Farfantepenaeus duorarum, catch statistics have been collected by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service, or its predecessor agency, for over 50 years. Recent events, including hurricanes and oil spills within the ecosystem of the fishery, have shown that documentation of these catch data is of primary importance. Fishing effort for this stock has fluctuated over the 50-year period analyzed, ranging from 3,376 to 31,900 days fished, with the most recent years on record, 2008 and 2009, exhibiting declines up to 90% relative to the high levels recorded in the mid 1990's. Our quantification of F. duorarum landings and catch rates (CPUE) indicates catch have been below the long-term average of about 12 million lb for all of the last 10 years on record. In contrast to catch and effort, catch rates have increased in recent years, with record CPUE levels measured in 2008 and 2009, of 1,340 and 1,144 lb per day fished, respectively. Our regression results revealed catch was dependent upon fishing effort (F=[98.48.sub.df=1, 48], p < 0.001, [r.sup.2]=0.67), (Catch=1,623,378 + (520) X (effort)). High CPUE's measured indicate stocks were not in decline prior to 2009, despite the decline in catch. The decrease in catch is attributed in large part to low effort levels caused by economical and not biological or habitat related conditions. Future stock assessments using these baseline data will provide further insights and management advice concerning the Gulf of Mexico F. duorarum stocks.|
Hurricanes (Gulf of Mexico)
Oil spills (Environmental aspects)
Fishing (Forecasts and trends)
Hart, Rick A.
Nance, James M.
Primrose, James A.
|Publication:||Name: Marine Fisheries Review Publisher: Superintendent of Documents Audience: Academic Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Agricultural industry; Business Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2012 U.S. Department of Commerce ISSN: 0090-1830|
|Issue:||Date: Wntr, 2012 Source Volume: 74 Source Issue: 1|
|Topic:||Event Code: 010 Forecasts, trends, outlooks; 680 Labor Distribution by Employer Computer Subject: Market trend/market analysis|
|Product:||Product Code: 7949220 Recreational Fishing; 0100000 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing; 7949200 Fish & Game Recreation NAICS Code: 71219 Nature Parks and Other Similar Institutions; 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting|
|Geographic:||Geographic Scope: Gulf of Mexico Geographic Code: 0GULF Gulf of Mexico|
The primary pink shrimp, Farfantepenaeus duorarum, fishing grounds consist of a small group of islands and reefs in the eastern Gulf of Mexico (GOM) where habitats are conducive to this species' survival and commercial fishing operations (Fig. 1) (statistical areas 1-3) (Iversen et al., 1960). Extensive study of this fishery after the discovery of commercially harvestable populations of F. duorarum in the late 1940's (Iversen et al., 1960) fueled concerns for the potential for overfishing expressed by Florida researchers and lawmakers during the 1950's (Iversen et al., 1960). Those concerns were mitigated in part by the establishment of sanctuaries which were closed to fishing for specified periods, thus allowing for the protection of F. duorarum stocks and increased fishery production upon resumption of fishing operations (Klima et al., 1986; Klima and Patella, 1985, and references contained therein for a synopsis of the fishery's management history).
Catch and effort statistics for the commercial F. duorarum fishery off of the west coast of Florida during 1960 through 2009 are documented herein. These catch statistics are used in National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) stock assessment models which estimate parent stock size and annual recruitment. These data are then used as indices to gauge the status of the population (Hart and Nance, 2010). These stock assessments are critical to future measurements of potential changes in fishing effort, total catch, spatial catch distribution, and catch rates (CPUE).
Commercial harvest records for F. duorarum collected since the 1950's (Iversen et al., 1960) include monthly statistics such as catch, value, size distributions, fishing effort, and catch per unit of effort (CPUE) from the GOM, using standard methods. NMFS port agents and state trip tickets record the daily operations and shrimp production of the commercial fisheries fleet operating within the boundaries of the eastern GOM. Scientists have subdivided the U.S. Gulf of Mexico into 21 statistical subareas (Patella, 1975) used by port agents and the state trip ticket system to assign the location of catches and fishing effort expended by the shrimp fleet on a trip by trip basis.
To calculate effort (i.e., the amount of time in hours the trawls are actually in the water fishing), catch, and CPUE statistics were calculated according to the methods outlined in Nance et al. (2008). An electronic logbook program (ELB) was initiated in 1999 to augment shrimp fishing effort measurements. Gallaway et al. (2003a, b) provides a description of the ELB program and data collection procedures. The ELB data are used to supplement effort and location data collected by NMFS port agents and state trip tickets.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The commercial shrimp statistics are entered into an Oracle (1) relational database maintained and managed by fisheries staff under the direction of the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, Fla. We have summarized those 1960-2009 catch statistics prerequisite to generating baseline information used in the NMFS F. duorarum stock assessments (Hart (2)). We also examine relationships between effort, catch, and catch rates using simple correlation and regression methodologies (Zar, 1984).
Fishing effort, measured in 24 h days fished (i.e., trawls in water) fluctuated over the 50-year period presented in this analysis, ranging from 3,376 to 33,900 days fished (Fig. 2). While effort values were relatively stable (approximately 18,000-25,000 days fished, with some annual variability from 1960 to 1987), during the late 1980's and early 1990's effort declined to about 17,000 days fished. Effort levels began to increase after 1994, eventually peaking to over 30,000 days fished during 1996-97. Following the period ending in 2005, effort dropped to the lowest levels on record, with fishermen only expending about 3,400 days fished in 2009.
Annual Shrimp Catch
F. duorarum catches from 1960 through 2009 averaged 11.9 [+ or -] 4.1 million lb (SD) (Fig. 2) (Table 1). The highest catch on record was in 1964 (21.3 million lb). Catch subsequently declined, but then peaked again in 1981. Catch declined sharply after the 1981 season, falling to 5.9 million lb in 1992. Following the 1992 low, catch increased to 19 million lb in 1996 (Fig. 2). From the late 1990's through the mid 2000's catch was about 7-10 million lb/ yr. However, beginning in 2006 yield began to decline with the lowest catch on record for this time series occurring in 2007, with only 3.4 million lb of F. duorarum. Catch rebounded to 4.9 million lb in 2008, decreasing to a low of 3.9 million lb a year later.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
Catch Per Unit of Effort (CPUE)
Catch per unit of effort (CPUE), reported as pounds of shrimp caught during a 24-h fishing day (pounds per nominal day fished), averaged 634 lb/ day fished in statistical areas 1-11 (Table 1) during 1960-2009. The CPUE of 391 lb/day fished during 1997 was the lowest harvesting rate for this 50 yr time series. CPUE began to increase from the 1997 low in 2003. This increase continued through 2009, relative to the low CPUE's of the late 1990's, and despite a trend of decreasing catch. Record high catch rates were recorded in 2008 and 2009 with 1,340 and 1,144 lb/day fished, respectively (Table 1).
Collection of commercial fishing statistics for F. duorarum was initiated in the 1950's during this fishery's early development (Iversen et al., 1960). These statistics have been used to elucidate trends and changes in the fishery and, while they are fishery dependent, they do illustrate the population's behavior when data sets are viewed in conjunction with one another. For example, CPUE trends developed from catch and effort data not only illustrate the fishing efficiency of the fleet and availability of the shrimp to harvest, and in so doing, may be used as an index of the population's abundance (Quinn and Deriso, 1999).
The effort decrease we measured in 2008 represents an approximate 90% reduction in fishing effort when compared to the high levels recorded in 1997. These declining effort levels are likely due to the adverse economic conditions the fishing community experienced during this time period (Travis and Griffin (3)). Factors contributing to this decline include: the devastation caused by hurricanes Katrina and Rita (2005) and Gustav and Ike (2008); an increase in low-cost shrimp imports onto the American market (Keithly and Roberts, 2000; Haby et al., 2003); and an increase in marine fuel prices (Haby et al., 2003).
Related to these low effort levels, catches have been below the long-term average for all of the last 10 yr of recorded landings. Previously, decreasing catch was thought to have been due to habitat degradation (O'Conner and Matlock, 2005), primarily in Florida Bay (Robblee et al., 1991), and decreased freshwater inflows (Sheridan, 1996). However, in recent years the primary reason for reduced harvests appears to be attributable to the record low effort levels in this fishery.
O'Conner and Matlock (2005) proposed that landings from this fishery were independent of fishing effort. Conversely, we believe catch declined in response to reduced fishing effort and the data reflect a positive relationship between catch and effort ([F=98.48.sub.df=1, 48], p<0.001, [r.sup.2]=0.67) (Fig. 3). If the decrease in catch was due to low effort levels, as we propose, this would indicate that catches declined in recent years because of economic conditions and not because of reduced habitat and hence shrimp stocks. We believe that catch is driven by effort, vs. effort being driven by catch, and this is supported by the trend of increasing catch rates during those periods of low-effort expenditures.
Catch rates in the last 2 yr of our dataset are about two times greater than the long-term average. While decreases in both catch and effort during the later years are evident, disproportional changes in these parameters have resulted in an increase in CPUE for fishermen able to harvest F. duorarum. There was no positive correlation between catch and CPUE throughout this time series. Instead, CPUE increased as catch and effort declined to historically low levels (Fig. 4, 5), due to effort declining at a disproportionally higher rate than did catch. This suggests that catch is not necessarily a good measure of F. duorarum stock size in the GOM. Like that for other species, CPUE is a more accurate descriptor or proxy for stock size than catch alone (Quinn and Deriso, 1999).
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
As long as CPUE is shown to be a good measure of relative abundance (Quinn and Deriso, 1999, and references therein), the high catch rates we have recently measured are an indication that the F. duorarum population has remained large enough to not be negatively affected by current catch levels. This finding also is evident in the most recent GOM F. duorarum stock assessment modeling results (Hart and Nance, 2010; Hart (2)). The assessment model results provide another indication that the fishery during this time period is not in decline. The recent low harvest levels are likely due to economic conditions, manifested by low effort levels, not to unsuitable habitat or poor biological conditions.
Changes in juvenile habitat, e.g., freshwater flow pattern alteration (Sheridan, 1996), sea grass die-off (Robblee et al., 1991), high water temperatures and/ or salinity in Florida Bay, etc., have been suspected to be the cause for declines in shrimp populations (Sheridan, 1996). Declines in Florida Bay habitats, an area necessary for F. duorarum survival and growth, are well documented to have negative consequences for GOM populations (Browder et al., 1999; Browder and Robblee, 2009). These habitats serve as the primary nursery area for this Gulf shrimp species (Sheridan, 1996).
However, no recent biological causes for the current declines in F. duorarum catches along the Florida coast have been documented. While we did not attempt to measure habitat changes, we believe if biological parameters, e.g., poor recruitment due to habitat loss caused by the aforementioned possibilities, were a large factor in recent downturns in shrimp catch, we would be observing a decline in catch with stable or even increasing fishing effort. In contrast, some of the highest CPUE levels recorded in recent years indicate shrimp are available for harvest by fishermen financially able to target them. Currently, low yields and effort levels in the F. duorarum fishery seem better explained by economic rather than biological conditions.
Decades of catch and effort data have enabled the development of robust stock assessment models that successfully measured the performance and "health" of the fishery in the past (Iversen et al., 1960; Klima et al., 1986; Nance and Patella, 1989; Nance et al., 2008; Nichols (4); and more recently by Hart (2), who is developing an integrated F. duorarum Stock Synthesis model [Methot, 2009; Hart and Nance, 2010]). The primary model historically deployed in the NMFS F. duorarum assessments was a virtual population analysis (VPA) (Ricker, 1975) that estimated the number of parents (i.e., parent stock) used as an index of health of the population. Inability of the 2008 VPA to track the decline in fishing effort (see Appendix 1 in Hart and Nance, 2010) resulted in it being replaced with the aforementioned Stock Synthesis model (Hart and Nance, 2010). This new model has successfully tracked the observed extreme changes in catch, effort, and catch rates. Having these long-term baseline catch data puts the NMFS in a unique position to better measure future biological and economical impacts on this fishery.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
We thank Jo Anne Williams (NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center) for drafting the chart and for assistance with figures, and John Cole (LGL Ecological Research Associates) for developing data summaries used in our analysis. Tom Minello (NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center) and two anonymous reviewers provided valuable comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
Browder, J. A., V. R. Restrepo, J. K. Rice, M. B. Robblee, and Z. Zein-Eldin. 1999. Environmental influences on potential recruitment of pink shrimp, Farfantepenaeus duorarum, from Florida Bay nursery grounds. Estuaries 22(2B):484-499.
--and M. B. Robblee. 2009. Pink shrimp as an indicator for restoration of Everglades ecosystems. Ecol. Indic. 9S:S17-28.
Gallaway, B. J., J. G. Cole, L. M. Martin, J. M. Nance, and M. Longnecker. 2003a. An evaluation of an electronic logbook as a more accurate method of estimating spatial patterns of trawling effort and bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 23:787-809.
--and--. 2003b. Description of a simple electronic logbook designed to measure effort in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 23:581-589.
Haby, M. G., R. J. Miget, L. L Falconer, and G. L Graham. 2003. A review of current conditions in the Texas shrimp industry, an examination of contributing factors, and suggestions for remaining competitive in the global shrimp market. Tex. A&M Univ. Sea Grant Coll. Rep. TAMU-SG-03-701, 26 p.
Hart, R. A., and J. M. Nance. 2010. Gulf of Mexico pink shrimp assessment modeling update from a static VPA to an integrated assessment model stock synthesis. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSSEFSC-604, 32 p.
Iversen, E. S., A. E. Jones, and C. P. Idyll. 1960. Size distribution of pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum, and fleet concentrations on the Tortugas fishing grounds. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep.-Fish. 356, 62 p.
Keithly, W. R., and K. J. Roberts. 2000. Economics: contrast with wild catch fisheries. In R. R. Stickney (Editor), Encyclopedia of aquaculture, p. 261-277. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N.Y.
Klima, E. F., G. A. Matthews, and F. J. Patella. 1986. Synopsis of the Tortugas pink shrimp fishery, 1960-1983, and the impact of the Tortugas sanctuary. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 6:301-310.
--and F. J. Patella. 1985. A synopsis of the Tortugas Pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum, fishery, 1981-84, and the impact of the Tortugas Sanctuary. Mar. Fish. Rev. 47(4):11-18.
Methot, R. D. 2009. Stock assessment: operational models in support of fisheries management. In R. J. Beamish and B. J. Rothschild (Editors), Future of fishery science. Proc. 50th Anniv. Symp. Am. Inst. Fish. Res. Biol., Seattle, WA, p.137-165. Springer. Fish Fish. Ser. 31.
Nance, J., W. Keithly, Jr., C. Caillouet, Jr., J. Cole, W. Gaidry, B. Gallaway, W. Griffin, R. Hart, and M. Travis. 2008. Estimation of effort, maximum sustainable yield, and maximum economic yield in the shrimp fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-570, 71 p.
--, E. F. Klima, and T. E. Czapla. 1989. Gulf of Mexico shrimp stock assessment workshop. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-239, 41 p.
Nance, J. M., and F. J. Patella. 1989. Review of the Tortugas pink shrimp fishery from May 1987 to January 1989. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-238, 23 p.
O'Conner, T. P., and G. C. Matlock. 2005. Shrimp landing trends as indicators of estuarine habitat quality. Gulf. Mex. Sci. 2:102-196.
Patella, F. 1975. Water surface area within statistical subareas used in reporting gulf coast shrimp data. Mar. Fish. Rev. 37(12):22-24.
Quinn, T. J., II, and R. B. Deriso. 1999. Quantitative fish dynamics. Oxford Univ. Press, N.Y., 542 p.
Ricker, W. E. 1975. Handbook of computations for biological statistics of fish populations. Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can. 119:1-300.
Robblee, M. B., T. R. Barber, P. R. Carlson, Jr., M. J. Durako, J. W. Fourqurean, L. K. Muehlstein, D. Porter, L. A. Yarbro, R. T. Zieman, and J. C. Zieman. 1991. Mass mortality of the tropical seagrass Thalassia testudinum in Florida Bay (USA). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 71:297-299.
Sheridan, P 1996. Forecasting the fishery for pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum, on the Tortugas Grounds, Florida. Fish. Bull. 94:743755.
Zar, J. H. 1984. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 2nd ed., 718 p.
(1) Mention of trade names of commercial firms does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA.
(2) Hart, R. A. 2010. Gulf of Mexico 2009 Pink shrimp stock assessment. A report to the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council, 6 p.
(3) Travis, M. D., and W. L. Griffin. 2004. Update on the economic status of the Gulf of Mexico commercial shrimp fishery. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, NMFS SERO-ECON-04-01, 10 p.
(4) Nichols, S. 1984. Updated assessments of brown, white, and pink shrimp in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Paper presented at the SEFC Stock Assessment Workshop. Miami, Florida, May 1984, 53 p.
The authors are with the Galveston Laboratory, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, 4700 Avenue U, Galveston, TX 77551 (corresponding author is email@example.com).
Table 1.--U.S. Gulf of Mexico Farfantepenaeus duorarum commercial catch statistics, 1960-2009. Catch CPUE Effort Year (lb of tails) (lb/day fished) (days fished) 1,960 20,593,069 914 22,543 1,961 9,406,690 610 15,425 1,962 15,497,237 563 27,519 1,963 18,370,468 651 28,238 1,964 21,252,688 714 29,779 1,965 14,642,255 718 20,389 1,966 13,926,713 725 19,202 1,967 10,273,175 598 17,189 1,968 11,589,136 615 18,840 1,969 11,191,377 567 19,739 1,970 12,732,458 640 19,883 1,971 10,262,473 666 15,418 1,972 10,942,805 562 19,477 1,973 14,463,616 613 23,594 1,974 15,078,522 630 23,952 1,975 14,643,411 562 26,056 1,976 12,978,663 617 21,040 1,977 16,165,122 585 27,618 1,978 15,977,848 696 22,949 1,979 13,830,369 632 21,890 1,980 12,865,040 1,010 12,738 1,981 18,703,132 796 23,504 1,982 11,594,374 591 19,622 1,983 12,589,459 544 23,158 1,984 14,604,879 578 25,277 1,985 15,699,557 642 24,440 1,986 11,632,220 509 22,835 1,987 10,123,201 462 21,928 1,988 8,910,101 470 18,960 1,989 8,497,586 459 18,507 1,990 7,300,883 441 16,569 1,991 6,469,751 429 15,083 1,992 5,958,821 462 12,896 1,993 9,327,618 546 17,081 1,994 9,839,113 497 19,785 1,995 13,861,084 656 21,133 1,996 19,053,469 611 31,209 1,997 12,476,766 391 31,900 1,998 16,856,192 561 30,021 1,999 7,895,197 400 19,739 2,000 7,243,949 489 14,823 2,001 9,459,139 487 19,429 2,002 10,455,653 462 22,629 2,003 9,943,416 591 16,828 2,004 10,133,824 727 13,938 2,005 8,722,912 735 11,874 2,006 7,653,941 901 8,496 2,007 3,414,746 894 3,818 2,008 4,888,385 1,340 3,648 2,009 3,861,071 1,144 3,376
|Gale Copyright:||Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.|