Last updated on 8 August 2018

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

IDENTIFICATION

SCIENTIFIC NAME(s)

Macruronus magellanicus

SPECIES NAME(s)

Patagonian grenadier, Hoki

COMMON NAMES

merluza de cola (Spanish)

Patagonian grenadier or Hoki is distributed in the Southeast Pacific and Southwest Atlantic, from southern Chile to Argentina. Studies suggested high mixture between Pacific and Atlantic populations (Schuchert et al., 2010; Niklitschek et al., 2013) and more recent studies concluded that hoki of the Southwest Atlantic is a unique population group (stock) distributed all around the cone of South America. There have been joint workshops between Chilean and Argentine research institutes but there are still two separate assessment units: Patagonian grenadier - Argentine and a Patagonian grenadier - Chilean.


ANALYSIS

Strengths
  • Stock structure has been studied;  evidences indicate existence of a single Chilean-Argentine stock.
  • An external peer review of the assessment model in the Southwest Atlantic was conducted; most reviewer’s recommendations have been incorporated in last assessments.
  • A harvest control rule has been proposed and approved, but will still need to be tested.
  • Fishing mortality estimates were reported in last stock assessment.
  • Misreporting and discarding are assessed, and up-to-date estimates are used to correct the nominal catches and obtain total catch time series.
  • Since 2001, catch limits have gradually decreased and the lowest value was set for 2017 and 2018.
  • Estimated catches are below the set Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and advised limits.
  • Fishing vessels are equipped with VMS (since 2004) and must take an on-board observer; dock side monitoring is also performed.
  • Impacts on bycatch species, protected species and benthic ecosystems are being studied, and several mitigation measures are being implemented (streamer lines, marine protected area in key fishing grounds,etc).
Weaknesses
  • Research cruises to estimate abundance indexes have been discontinued since 2010, increasing uncertainty in stock assessment and stock status. 
  • There is evidence that there is a single stock within the South Atlantic and South Pacific populations, but it is assessed and managed independently by Argentina and Chile. The South Pacific population is considered depleted for several years. 
  • Recruitment is associated to higher levels of uncertainty in recent years.
  • New limit and target biomass reference points were defined at levels not supported by stock-recruitment relationship series. Both reference points were set below the lowest observed estimates, where the risk of compromised reproductive capacity is unknown. 
  • Sources of uncertainty mentioned above require a more precautionary harvest strategy, contrary to the lower recently adopted biomass reference points.
  • Stock status of an important bycatch retained species Patagonian cod (Salilota australis) is unknown and catches are in a decreasing trend since 2013.
  • Catches of bycatch retained species Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) are above set TAC of several years.
  • Concerns on cumulative impacts from bottom trawling in small hotspots have been raised.
Options
  • Limit and target reference points have been revised 2016 and a harvest control rule have been defined in 2017. Still, the new reference points were defined at levels not supported by stock-recruitment relationship series. Both reference points were set below the lowest observed estimates, where the risk of compromised reproductive capacity is unknown. The current target reference point seems more adequate to a precautionary limit reference level.
  • Support MSC re-certification conditions.
  • Analyze concerns raise on on cumulative impacts from bottom trawling in small hotspots.
  • Determine the stock status of Patagonian cod (Salilota australis) to allow defining adequate management measures needed to protect the stock.
  • Ensure compliance on set TAC of bycatch retained species Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides).
  • Ensure TAC for southern hake (Merluccius australis) is set in line with recommended catch limits to maintain the stock at the target reference point. 

FISHSOURCE SCORES

Management Quality:

Management Strategy:

< 6

Managers Compliance:

10

Fishers Compliance:

10

Stock Health:

Current
Health:

≥ 6

Future Health:

≥ 6


RECOMMENDATIONS

RETAILERS & SUPPLY CHAIN
  • Work with managers and scientists to implement an independent review of the quality of the key input data that drive the stock assessment, and in particular whether the catch-per-unit-effort time series is an adequate index of the stock.
  • Support managers and INIDEP to reinstate the periodic fishery-independent biomass surveys for Patagonian grenadier, to better inform the assessment model. 
  • Ensure that the work to address the harvest control rule (HCR) and reference point-related MSC certification condition fully explores and justifies the choice of the HCR and the reference points in a rigorous and transparent manner.
  • Ask fishery managers to further explore the need to share information and coordinate stock assessments with Chile.
  • Work with the fishery to reduce catches of Patagonian toothfish to ensure that catch limits are complied with.
  • Work with scientists and managers to determine the stock status of Patagonian cod, establish catch limits, and ensure catch compliance.
  • Ask managers for increased implementation and monitoring and compliance with recently tested mitigation measures for seabirds.
  • Monitor the progress in closing out conditions placed upon the MSC certification of the fishery and if agreed timelines are met. Offer assistance in closing conditions where possible.

FIPS

No related FIPs

CERTIFICATIONS

  • Argentine hoki (Macruronus magellanicus) bottom and mid-water trawl fishery:

    MSC Recertified

Fisheries

Within FishSource, the term "fishery" is used to indicate each unique combination of a flag country with a fishing gear, operating within a particular management unit, upon a resource. That resource may have a known biological stock structure and/or may be assessed at another level for practical or jurisdictional reasons. A fishery is the finest scale of resolution captured in FishSource profiles, as it is generally the scale at which sustainability can most fairly and practically be evaluated.

ASSESSMENT UNIT MANAGEMENT UNIT FLAG COUNTRY FISHING GEAR
Argentine Argentina Argentina Bottom trawls
Midwater trawls
Falkland Islands (malvinas) Bottom trawls
Midwater trawls
Spain Bottom trawls
Midwater trawls
Uruguay Bottom trawls
Midwater trawls

Analysis

OVERVIEW

Last updated on 8 August 2018

Strengths
  • Stock structure has been studied;  evidences indicate existence of a single Chilean-Argentine stock.
  • An external peer review of the assessment model in the Southwest Atlantic was conducted; most reviewer’s recommendations have been incorporated in last assessments.
  • A harvest control rule has been proposed and approved, but will still need to be tested.
  • Fishing mortality estimates were reported in last stock assessment.
  • Misreporting and discarding are assessed, and up-to-date estimates are used to correct the nominal catches and obtain total catch time series.
  • Since 2001, catch limits have gradually decreased and the lowest value was set for 2017 and 2018.
  • Estimated catches are below the set Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and advised limits.
  • Fishing vessels are equipped with VMS (since 2004) and must take an on-board observer; dock side monitoring is also performed.
  • Impacts on bycatch species, protected species and benthic ecosystems are being studied, and several mitigation measures are being implemented (streamer lines, marine protected area in key fishing grounds,etc).
Weaknesses
  • Research cruises to estimate abundance indexes have been discontinued since 2010, increasing uncertainty in stock assessment and stock status. 
  • There is evidence that there is a single stock within the South Atlantic and South Pacific populations, but it is assessed and managed independently by Argentina and Chile. The South Pacific population is considered depleted for several years. 
  • Recruitment is associated to higher levels of uncertainty in recent years.
  • New limit and target biomass reference points were defined at levels not supported by stock-recruitment relationship series. Both reference points were set below the lowest observed estimates, where the risk of compromised reproductive capacity is unknown. 
  • Sources of uncertainty mentioned above require a more precautionary harvest strategy, contrary to the lower recently adopted biomass reference points.
  • Stock status of an important bycatch retained species Patagonian cod (Salilota australis) is unknown and catches are in a decreasing trend since 2013.
  • Catches of bycatch retained species Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) are above set TAC of several years.
  • Concerns on cumulative impacts from bottom trawling in small hotspots have been raised.
Options
  • Limit and target reference points have been revised 2016 and a harvest control rule have been defined in 2017. Still, the new reference points were defined at levels not supported by stock-recruitment relationship series. Both reference points were set below the lowest observed estimates, where the risk of compromised reproductive capacity is unknown. The current target reference point seems more adequate to a precautionary limit reference level.
  • Support MSC re-certification conditions.
  • Analyze concerns raise on on cumulative impacts from bottom trawling in small hotspots.
  • Determine the stock status of Patagonian cod (Salilota australis) to allow defining adequate management measures needed to protect the stock.
  • Ensure compliance on set TAC of bycatch retained species Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides).
  • Ensure TAC for southern hake (Merluccius australis) is set in line with recommended catch limits to maintain the stock at the target reference point. 
RECOMMENDATIONS

Last updated on

Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain
  • Work with managers and scientists to implement an independent review of the quality of the key input data that drive the stock assessment, and in particular whether the catch-per-unit-effort time series is an adequate index of the stock.
  • Support managers and INIDEP to reinstate the periodic fishery-independent biomass surveys for Patagonian grenadier, to better inform the assessment model. 
  • Ensure that the work to address the harvest control rule (HCR) and reference point-related MSC certification condition fully explores and justifies the choice of the HCR and the reference points in a rigorous and transparent manner.
  • Ask fishery managers to further explore the need to share information and coordinate stock assessments with Chile.
  • Work with the fishery to reduce catches of Patagonian toothfish to ensure that catch limits are complied with.
  • Work with scientists and managers to determine the stock status of Patagonian cod, establish catch limits, and ensure catch compliance.
  • Ask managers for increased implementation and monitoring and compliance with recently tested mitigation measures for seabirds.
  • Monitor the progress in closing out conditions placed upon the MSC certification of the fishery and if agreed timelines are met. Offer assistance in closing conditions where possible.

1.STOCK STATUS

STOCK ASSESSMENT

Last updated on 24 July 2018

In Argentina, the National Institute for Fisheries Research and Development (INIDEP) is in charge of assessing fish stocks. The assessment for hoki is carried out annualy, using an AD Model Builder age structured analysis since 2012. This model was peer reviewed by external scientists, in 2014 and 2016 (GIUSSI et al. 2016), and improvements were applied in 2016, following peer reviewers recommendations: i) estimation of the virginal reproductive biomass; ii) use of a stock –recruitment relationship and iii) use of the variability of the reproductive biomass, as an index to set biological reference points. These led to drastic changes in the assessment model and estimated reference points; resulting in a completely different understanding of stock status.  However, a detailed background on the new methodology is not included in the stock assessment report (GIUSSI et al. 2016)(GIUSSI et al. 2017).

Input data integrates abundance estimates from research surveys from 1992-2009 and an abundance index developed with catch per unit effort (CPUE) data from 2003-2016 (due to lack of research cruises), on-board observer data in commercial vessels, total commercial catches (national and foreign vessels data; for Argentinean catches, estimates include corrections due to misreporting and discarding). As well, input data included catch-at-age data updated with recently estimated age structure and catches’ length frequency and updated weight at age data, proportion of mature fish at age (GIUSSI et al. 2017)

Uncertainties refer to stock structure, recruitment estimates in recent years and CPUE. An increase in CPUE was observed in recent years, probably related to an increase in effort in more reduced areas (GIUSSI et al. 2016). Studies suggested a high mixture between Pacific and Atlantic populations (Schuchert et al., 2010; Niklitschek et al., 2013), therefore, cooperative assessments between both countries may be needed to cover the entire stock distribution area.

Stock assessment reports are only available upon request through the INIDEP website.

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE

Last updated on 24 July 2018

In the last years, only limit biomass reference points have been used, and varied from 600,000 to 450,000 tonnes, used until 2015 (GIUSSI et al. 2015). In 2016, dynamic biological limit and target reference points based on spawning stock virginal biomass (B0) were adopted: limit reference point at 25%Band target reference point at 40%B(GIUSSI et al. 2016).  

In last stock assessment, B0 was estimated at 507,940 tonnes, thus Btarget = 203,176 tonnes and Blimit = 126,985 tonnes (GIUSSI et al. 2017). These new reference levels are however not supported by the stock-recruitment series available in last stock assessment reports (GIUSSI et al. 2016)(GIUSSI et al. 2017), raising uncertainties around defined reference points.

To estimate the Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) levels, the population’s evolution is simulated under different assumptions regarding future recruitment and exploitation levels, and the risk of overfishing is measured for each scenario. In 2017, recruiment scenarios used were R1 = long-term average from 1985 to 2014 (2015 and 2016 estimates were not used given the high uncertainty); R2 = same time series, but excluding estimates higher than that average, and R3 = last ten years estimates. Fishing mortality (F) reference levels were: F from last stock assessment (F2016), F associated to the biomass reference point (Ftarget =F40% B0) and F from applying the harvest control rule (FHCR) (GIUSSI et al. 2017a,b). BAC values ranged from 60,000 to 100,000 tonnes. Final recommendation for 2018 was to maintain catch limit at 80,000 tonnes, set catch value for 2017 and an intermediate value of ABC range estimates (GIUSSI et al. 2017).

INIDEP scientists noted that the suspension of the research assessment surveys (2010 onwards) in the area extending from 45° to 55° SL, produced a significant increase in the uncertainty and this triggered an update and re-analysis of the CPUE as an abundance index (Morsan et al. 2016).

CURRENT STATUS

Last updated on 24 July 2018

The stock has experienced cyclic increments and declines over the time series, total biomass has been stable since 1985 at ~700,000 tonnes up to the early 1990s (spawning stock biomass - SSB at ~400,000 tonnes) , when the stock peaked at ~1,300,000 tonnes until mid-2000s (SSB at ~600,000 tonnes), due to several sequential high recruitment events between 1991 and 2001. Current recruitment seems higher than in the period prior to this high recruitment phase, but with higher variability. This variability may be more related to abiotic factors than to intrinsic population conditions. A very similar trend in biomass between the Pacific and Atlantic populations, mainly since 2000. The significant decrease in both populations' biomasses from mid 2000's may be related with the absence of high recruitment events observed in the mid-1990's. A gradual increase is observed since 2013 (GIUSSI et al. 2016)(GIUSSI et al. 2017)

Catches attained relative maximum values (145,000 tonnes) when foreign fleets started to explore this resource under international agreements in mid-1980s. Between 1990 and 1997 catches decreased to ~40,000 tonnes, due to the end of these agreements. From 1998, reported catches increased again reaching high levels in 2000 and 2006 (historical peak was 168,000 tonnes) with TACs’ increase. In the last decade, catches had decreased to half the average of the 1998-2010 period, mirroring biomass trends. Since 2012, total catch levels have been well below catch limits, and are close to the lower limits of biologically acceptable catch ranges (GIUSSI et al. 2016)(GIUSSI et al. 2017)

In 2016, there was a significant change in stock status compared with previous stock assessments, due to changes in the assessment model updated population parameters and reference points (GIUSSI et al. 2016). The same assessment model was used in 2017, updating input data only. 2016 SSB was 54% of the spawning stock virginal biomass (SSB0), which indicates the stock is above the target reference point (40%SSB0) and shows an increase from the 2015 estimate. Fishing mortality estimates relative to the Ftarget (F40%SSB0), have been around the target or below for most of the time-series, except for the year 1998, when a high fishing pressure was exerted (GIUSSI et al. 2017)

Still, it is noticeable that the target reference point (Btarget = 40%SSB0) is set at the lowest historical value, below which reproductive capacity is unknown, thus this value seems more adequate to a precautionary limit reference level. Both new limit and target reference levels are not supported by the stock-recruitment series available in last stock assessment reports (GIUSSI et al. 2016)(GIUSSI et al. 2017), raising uncertainties around recently defined reference points and thus on current stock status.

2.MANAGEMENT QUALITY

MANAGEMENT

Last updated on 24 July 2018

A system of Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) was established in 2010, and the Total Allowable Catch (TAC; Captura Maxima Permissible, CMP) for hoki is set annually by the Fisheries Federal Council (Consejo Federal Pesquero, CFP), based on acceptable biological catch recommendations. In 2012, CFP established a Fishery Management Plan that includes specific objectives and management measures (CFP Resolution N° 22/2012), among these are: i) a spatial closure for industrialtrawlers (Surimi processing); ii) minimum mesh size of 120 mm; iii) minimum landing size of 60cm; iv) when >50% of the catch proportion is of juveniles, the fishing operation should be moved a minimum of 5 nautical miles; v) the presence of an onboard scientific observer from INIDEP to monitor bycatch of seabirds, and an inspector. Also, an Advisor Commission was created to monitor fishing activites (CFP Resolution N° 5/2010).

Between 2000 and 2003, TACs were set at scientifically advised levels but since then TACs have generally overpassed scientific recommendations (with exception of 2008 and 2013). TAC has been set at 130,000 tonnes from 2014 to 2016, overpassing the advice (CFP, 2014c), for 2017 it was significantly reduced to 80,000 tonnes (CFP 2016). However, this volume was 30% higher than the advised catch level to maintain the stock biomass at the new target level (GIUSSI et al. 2016). For 2018, TAC remained at 80,000 tonnes, which is in line with INIDEP advice (CFP 2017).

A harvest control rule (HCR) has been recently proposed and accepted (GIUSSI et al. 2017)(CFP 2017), which anticipates reducing fishing effort if the biomass drops below target and limit levels. A condition has been set to the MSC certified client group, which requires evidence that this HCR is likely to be robust to the main uncertainties and to the uncertainties related to the stock structure (Morsan et al. 2018).

COMPLIANCE

Last updated on 24 July 2018

Four fleets target hoki in Argentinean waters: ice chilled vessels, hake freezer vessels, factory freezer vessels and surimi freezer vessels. Catches have been consistently below set TACs, in 2016 TAC was set at 130,000 tonnes while catches were at 56,600 tonnes. Underreporting and discarding are regularly estimated, and up-to-date estimates are used to correct nominal catches (GIUSSI et al. 2015)(GIUSSI et al. 2016)(GIUSSI et al. 2017). Since 2004, fishing vessels are equipped with VMS and must take an on-board observer; dock side monitoring is also performed in 100% of landings (CFP, 2012; Prenski et al., 2015).

No non-compliance issues have been raised in the re-certification report (Morsan et al. 2018).

3.ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY

BYCATCH
ETP Species

Last updated on 8 August 2018

A National Action Plan for the Conservation of Marine Mammals has been approved in Argentina in late 2015 (PAN-Mamíferos). Hoki fishery interacts with marine mammals (Morsan et al. 2018).

The Argentine hoki bottom and mid-water trawl fishery in Argentine Sea interacts with chondrichthyes and seabirds that are classified as ETP species by national legislation (CFP Resolutions N° 6/2009 and N° 15/2010) and binding international agreements.

Argentina published in 2010 the National Action Plan for the Reduction of Bird-fishery Interactions (PAN-Aves) and is signatory of international agreements to protect seabirds. Black browed albatross Thalassarche melanophrys is the main species interacting with trawlers. It was considered as Near Threatened until 2017 (IUCN red List; BI, 2014a) but was recently assessed as Least Concern (IUCN 2017) as population is increasing. Other ETP seabirds such as the Atlantic petrel Pterodroma incerta (Endangered in IUCN Red List; BI, 2015a), the Southern Royal Albatross Diomedea epomophora (Vulnerable in IUCN Red List; D2, assessed in 2016) and white-chinned petrel Procellaria aequinoctialis (Vulnerable in IUCN Red List; BI, 2015b) also interact with fishing gears (Prenski et al., 2012). A pilot project to assess the effectiveness of a streamer line in the surimi freezer trawler fleet was conducted. A mortality rate of 0.25 birds per tow was estimated, including: Black-browed Albatross, Southern Royal Albatross, Southern Giant Petrel and Northern Giant Petrel ((Macronectes halli). Impacts were significantly reduced when using the streamer line as a mitigation measure (Tamini et al. 2016).

Mandatory use of two streamer lines in all freezer vessels with bottom trawl net has recently entered into force (CFP 2017). A condition was set to the certified component of the fishery to provide evidence of the effectiveness and appropriate implementation to minimize mortality of ETP seabirds (Morsan et al. 2018)

A National Action Plan for the Reduction of Chondrichthyans-fishery Interactions (PAN-Tiburones) was published in 2009, and has been updated in 2015 (PAN-Tiburones Revision 2015). Among chondrichthyans, Porbeagle (Lamna nasus) is the only ETP species with significant catches (Cortés and Waessle, 2017; Morsan et al., 2018), which is categorized by IUCN as “vulnerable” at the global level. Another three chondrichthyans categorized by IUCN as vulnerable are caught int this fishery: whitedotted skate (Rhinoraja albomaculata), yellownose skate (Zearaja chilensis) and spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias). There is a 50% bycatch limit of chondrichthyans per fishing trip, yet, no information on current bycatch levels is available. 

Generic measures are in place for the purpose of sharks bycatch mitigation: i) it is forbidden to target chondrichthyan species, ii) shark finning and use of hooks in discarding process are also is forbidden, iii) it is mandatory to return live individuals that exceed the size of 160 cm and all individual dead by fishing process shall be recorded, iv) it is established a 50% as total landing catch of skates, sharks and Callorhynchus callorhynchus per fishing trip, or a 30% as maximum limit of landing for sharks and skates per fishing trip, and in case detecting that fishing haul exceeds the limits mentioned above, the vessel shall change the fishing operation area (CFP Resolutions N° 13/2003, N° 13/2009,  N° 4/2013 and N° 7/2013). (Puliafito and Massa 2016) reviewed an alternative measure that maximizes post-capture survival of great sharks in the demersal austral fishery, but this is not mandatory yet. 

According to Morsan et al. (2018), identification and quantification of ETP species are systematically carried out by INIDEP onboard observers program and the secretariat of fisheries (SSPyA) authorities in the landing process, however report on ETP species interactions and bycatch is not publicly available. 

Other Species

Last updated on 8 August 2018

Hoki is mostly captured in the southern demersal fishery (85% bottom trawl). This fishery is mainly carried out in the Patagonian area located south of 48°, has multispecies characteristics including as main target species Patagonian grenadier or hoki (Macruronus magellanicus) encompassing 50-70% of catches and Southern blue whiting (Micromesistius australis) with 15-35% of catches. Secondary species are Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) with 6-11% of catches in recent years, Patagonian cod (Salilota australis) with 5-6% of catches and southern hake (Merluccius australis) with 2-5% (GORINI and GIUSSI 2018). However, percentages vary among the different fleets fishing hoki. In 2016, factory vessels caught mainly hoki (70%), and several secondary species: 9%), hake (Merluccius hubbsi), southern hake (Merluccius australis, 7%) and Tadpole codling or Patagonian cod (Salilota australis, 5.5%) (SSPyA 2017). Ice-chilled and freezer vessels can target hake or hoki and the main incidentally species captured is squid (Illex argentinus) (Prenski et al., 2014). These catches are considered in squid assessments by INIDEP, however on board observers monitoring should increase (Buono and Ivanovic 2015).

Most of these species are managed under the quota system, therefore are closely followed by INIDEP (e.g. CFP Resolutions Nº 4/2016, Nº 17/2016, Nº 18/2016). Southern blue whiting (locally known as polaca) is around its limit reference point; biomass is increasing since 2011 after management measures were established to allow recovery of the stock (GIUSSI and ZAVATTERI 2017). Patagonian toothfish (locally known as merluza negra) is above its limit reference point but below the recently proposed target reference point (DI MARCO et al. 2017); TAC has been set at 3,700 tonnes since 2015 (CFP 2015)(CFP 2016)(CFP 2017)(CFP 2018), slightly above the recently recommended level to achieve the target reference point (30% of the spawning stock biomass in 1980, at the beginning of the evaluation of the stock). However, catches have been above 5,000 tonnes in the last years (GORINI and GIUSSI 2018)

For southern hake (locally known as merluza austral), TACs have set at 5,000 tonnes since 2014 based on a 2014 stock assessment (CFP 2014)(CFP 2015)(CFP 2016)(CFP 2017)(CFP 2018). The Argentine hoki fishery went through a MSC re-certification process recently, in which a condition was issued to update the knowledge of the stock status of this species (Morsan et al. 2018). A stock assessment was recently conducted and reference points were proposed (GIUSSI and ZAVATTERI 2018); indicating the stock is around the proposed target reference point set at 50% of the spawning stock biomass in 1986, at the beginning of the evaluation of the stock. However, this assessment estimated a catch limit of 3,500 tonnes in order to maintain the stock at the target reference point (GIUSSI and ZAVATTERI 2018).

Patagonian cod (locally known as bacalao austral) last TAC was established in 2005 at 5,000 tonnes, however, this TAC was not supported by a scientific recommendation and was never renewed or updated. There is no stock assessment conducted and no management measures set for this species. Landings have ranged from 6 to 12 thousand tonnes from 2005 to 2014, dropped below 6 thousand tonnes since 2015 and dropped again below 3 thousand tonnes in 2017 (GORINI and GIUSSI 2018)

Information on non retained bycatch species is limited.

HABITAT

Last updated on 8 August 2018

Several studies have been undertaken to describe the benthic habitats where the hoki fishery is conducted and to assess the specific impacts. Invertebrate groups were mapped from samples collected before the hoki fishery reached its maximum development. Many identified groups are considered as indicator taxa of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VME), e.g. porifera, bryozoans, hydroids, echinoderms, and their distribution pattern match with areas of main hoki reported catches by Argentine and foreign fleets operating in the AEEZ (Prenski et al., 2014). 

In 2014, INDEP began to explore the state of the seafloor where the hoki fishery takes place. An initial study conducted by the hoki commercial fleet with onboard observers indicated that the amount of biomass of benthos bycatch arriving on board is very low (Marí & Giussi, 2014). Updated data indicate changes in fleets’ behavior, with increased and more spatially concentrated bottom trawling in comparison to previous years. Two main areas of high bottom trawling intensity were detected, one south of Island of Tierra del Fuego characterized by scallop Zygochlamys patagonica. The other areas is located northeast of Staten Island and is dominated by a mixture of predators such as echinoderms and the snail Fusitriton magellanicus and filters like sponges and scallop. The highest richness areas were identified in Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands) and around Tierra del Fuego (Morsan et al. 2018).

VMS monitoring system allowed estimation of the timing, location, and severity of the impacts of the trawl fisheries in the Argentine continental platform (Alemany et al. 2016), and they determined that the spatial distribution of trawling activity is patchy and trawling hotspots were small, comprising annually <5% of the shelf extension or <7% of the total trawlable area. These findings suggest that the magnitude of habitat effects as result of bottom trawling is relatively small. Even if coincident with high richness areas, the fishing area is low, thus, the probability that the fishery would reduce structure and function of habitats now or in the future is low. Still, concerns on cumulative impacts from bottom trawling in those small hotspots have been raised (Gaitán and Mari 2016); and the need to assess with greater detail the composition of the benthic community in the sector has been pointed (Morsan et al. 2018).

Mid-water trawl net rarely encounters the sea bottom as it can be damaged by it, incurring in significant costs to fishers (Morsan et al. 2018).

The strategy to protect priority habitats from fishery impacts is via areas closed for trawl fishing, such as: (1) area for the protection of hake juveniles (CFP Act N° 265/2000); (2) area for the protection of Patagonian toothfish juveniles (CFP Act N° 17/2002); (3) area closed for all trawling fisheries (Argentinean Federal Law Nº 23.968); and (4) the first marine protected area (MPA) Namuncurá – Banco Burdwood (Law Nº 26.875) created in 2013 (MEyFP 2013). Following, the National System of Marine Protected Areas was established in 2014 as a tool for creation and coordination of new necessary MPAs (MAyDS 2016)

 A condition was set for the initial certification of the hoki fishery due to the need to gather information on habitat impacts and status (Condition 6, Prenski et al., 2012). This condition was considered ‘closed’ in the 4th surveillance report as monitoring of benthic bycatch species by bottom trawlers was continuing to be analyzed (Morsan et al. 2016). However, no condition or recommendation on this topic was set in the re-certification (Morsan et al. 2018).

ECOSYSTEM

Last updated on 8 August 2018

Fishery ecosystems have been identified in the Argentine Sea. Since the promulgation of the first MPA in Argentina, in 2013, and establishment of the National System of Marine Protected Areas in 2014, information on ecosystems at finer scale has been published (MAyDS 2016). Main areas with ecological importance include the austral slope, the Burdwood Bank and its slope, where the hoki fishery operates. The key element of the ecosystem is the presence of the Malvinas Current (cold and rich in nutrients) (Morsan et al. 2018). It flows along the slope generating oceanographic structures, such as fronts, which are discontinuities in the marine environment influencing the ecology of marine organisms. This system brings several services like nutrient recycling from the bottom, carbon dioxide absortion (specially associated to fronts) and antropogenic use (transport and fisheries). Frontal systems are characterized by high primary and secondary production that is transferred to higher trophic levels within the regional food web (Alemany et al. 2014). The trophic web of fish community between 45° and 54° S is strongly supported by zooplankton.  A Magellanic corridor is being proposed as one of the 3 corridors to integrate key ecological areas in the Argentine EEZ (MAyDS 2016).

FishSource Scores

Last updated on 19 September 2018

SELECT SCORES

MANAGEMENT QUALITY

As calculated for 2018 data.

The score is < 6.

Dynamic limit and target biomass reference points based on virgin biomass were adopted in 2016(Blim = 25%B0 and Btarget = 40%B0) (Giussi et al., 2016a). Based on the stock-recruitment relationship, previous Blim was very conservative (Giussi et al., 2016b), however, current Blim is well below the known spawning stock biomass range and Btarget – set around the lowest historical estimates - seems to be a better candidate for a precautionary limit reference level (Giussi et al., 2016a; 2017a). As well, there is evidence that there is a single stock within the South Atlantic and South Pacific populations, and the Pacific portion is in bad condition for several years, thus this uncertainty and status would require a more precautionary approach. Fishing mortality reference point is related to Btarget, thus, sharing same uncertainties. A harvest control rule has been proposed and approved (Giussi et al., 2017b), but still needs to be tested (Morsan et al., 2018).

As calculated for 2018 data.

The score is 10.0.

This measures the Set TAC as a percentage of the Advised TAC.

The Set TAC is 80.0 ('000 t). The Advised TAC is 80.0 ('000 t) .

The underlying Set TAC/Advised TAC for this index is 100%.

As calculated for 2016 data.

The score is 10.0.

This measures the Estimated catch as a percentage of the Set TAC.

The Estimated catch is 56.6 ('000 t). The Set TAC is 130 ('000 t) .

The underlying Estimated catch/Set TAC for this index is 43.6%.

STOCK HEALTH:

As calculated for 2018 data.

The score is ≥ 6.

Current biomass is above target biomass reference point (Btrp). However, there are uncertainties about the recently defined reference points, as Btrp set around 200,000 tonnes, a level not supported by the stock-recruitment series (Giussi et al., 2016a; Giussi et al.,2017a). This is below the lowest historically observed biomass estimate; thus at a level where the risk of compromised reproductive capacity is unknown. In addition, there are signs of mixture of Atlantic and Pacific hoki populations and there is a strong possibility of having a single stock, being the Chilean portion (where the only known spawning area is localized) considered in a depleted condition for several years (SUBPESCA, 2017). Besides, catches are in a decreasing trend for the last 10 years. Therefore, given the need of more information and background on the level of the current reference points set and stock structure, a precautionary qualitative score for the current health of the stock was assigned to consider the mentioned uncertainties.

As calculated for 2018 data.

The score is ≥ 6.

Fishing mortality (F) estimate is half of the target level. However, there are uncertainties about the recently defined fishing mortality reference point, as it is associated to the target biomass reference point, set below the lowest observed biomass estimate; where the risk of compromised reproductive capacity is unknown. In addition, recruitment is associated also to high levels of uncertainty in recent years and there are signs of high mixture of Atlantic and Pacific hoki populations, the latter considered in a depleted condition for several years (SUBPESCA, 2017). Besides, catches are in a decreasing trend for the last 10 years. Therefore, given the need of more information and background on the level of the current reference points set and stock structure, a precautionary qualitative score for the future health of the stock was assigned to consider the mentioned uncertainties.

ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS

Click on the score to see subscore

Click on the score to see subscore

Click on the score to see subscore

×

Bycatch Subscores

This fishery has multispecies characteristics including as main target species Patagonian grenadier or hoki (Macruronus magellanicus) encompassing 50-70% of catches and Southern blue whiting (Micromesistius australis) with 15-35% of catches. Secondary species are Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) with 6-11% of catches in recent years, Patagonian cod (Salilota australis) with 5-6% of catches and southern hake (Merluccius australis) with 2-5% (GORINI and GIUSSI 2018). Most of these species are assessed by INIDEP (GORINI and GIUSSI 2018). However, there is no stock assessment conducted for Patagonian cod and no management measures set for this species (Morsan et al. 2018).  

According to (Morsan et al. 2018), identification and quantification of ETP species are systematically carried out by INIDEP onboard observers program and the secretariat of fisheries (SSPyA) authorities in the landing process, and there is qualitative information reporting broad understanding of the annual harvest volume of discarded and ETP species in national action plans or landing records. However, coverage and statistical soundness of on board observers data is unknown as observers and analysis reports are not available. 

The hoki bottom and mid-water trawl fishery in Argentine Sea interacts with chondrichthyes and seabirds that are classified as ETP species by national legislation and binding international agreements. Among chondrichthyans, Porbeagle (Lamna nasus) is the only ETP species with significant catches (Cortés and Waessle 2017);(Morsan et al. 2018), which is categorized by IUCN as “vulnerable” at the global level. Another three chondrichthyans categorized by IUCN as vulnerable are caught int this fishery: whitedotted skate (Rhinoraja albomaculata), yellownose (Zearaja chilensis) and spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias). There is a 50% bycatch limit of chondrichthyans per fishing trip, yet, no information on current bycatch levels and stock status is available.

There are 10 seabird species reported to be caught by the fishery. Currently four of these are considered ETP species: southern royal albatross (Diomedea epomophora), wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans), Atlantic petrel (Pterodroma incerta) and white-chined petrel (Procellaria aequinoctialis). Population status is studied at global scale, and longline fisheries are associated to population declines for some species. A mortality rate of 0.25 birds per tow was estimated in an observational and experimental study conducted on freezers fleet (Tamini et al. 2016) upon four seabird species, including the ETP southern royal albatross. These authors indicated that freezer vessels, which exerts a great fishing effort annually had a high bycatch of these ETP seabirds, and that implementation of mitigation measures in this fleet was urgent. This led to mandatory use of streamer lines in all freezer bottom trawlers 2017 (CFP 2017).

However, in general, the fishery interactions with ETP chondrichthyes and seabirds speciesis low (<1% of total catch), so it is considered that does not jeopardize the viability or rebuilding of these species (Morsan et al. 2018).

Southern blue whiting represents around 15-35% of catches, the stock is around its limit reference point; biomass is increasing since 2011 after management measures were established to allow recovery of the stock (GIUSSI and ZAVATTERI 2017). Patagonian toothfish, which represents around 6-11% of catches, is above its limit reference point but below the recently proposed target reference point (DI MARCO et al. 2017). Its catches have been above recommended levels and set TACs in the last years (GORINI and GIUSSI 2018). A recent stock assessment of southern hake, which represents around 2-5% of catches, indicates the stock is around the proposed target reference point (GIUSSI and ZAVATTERI 2018). There is no stock assessment conducted for Patagonian cod (Salilota australis), thus stock status is unknown. Catches, which represents around 5-6% of total catch, have been decreasing since 2015 (GORINI and GIUSSI 2018).

Generic measures are in place for the purpose of sharks bycatch mitigation: i) it is forbidden to target chondrichthyan species, ii) shark finning and use of hooks in discarding process are also is forbidden, iii) it is mandatory to return live individuals that exceed the size of 160 cm and all individual dead by fishing process shall be recorded, iv) it is established a 50% as total landing catch of skates, sharks and Callorhynchus callorhynchus per fishing trip, or a 30% as maximum limit of landing for sharks and skates per fishing trip, and in case detecting that fishing haul exceeds the limits mentioned above, the vessel shall change the fishing operation area. (Puliafito and Massa 2016) reviewed an alternative measure that maximizes post-capture survival of  great sharks in the demersal austral fishery, but this is not mandatory yet.

Regarding seabird bycatch, mandatory use of two streamer lines in all freezer vessels with bottom trawl net has recently entered into force (CFP 2017). These measures were tested and are tailored to the characteristics of the fishery and local ecosystem  for the purpose of seabird bycatch mitigation (Tamini et al. 2016).  Enforcement and compliance of measures is unknown, but compliance has not been flagged as a problem. A condition was set to the certified component of the fishery to provide evidence of the effectiveness and appropriate implementation to minimize mortality of ETP seabirds (Morsan et al. 2018).

Most of bycatch retained species are managed under the quota system, and are closely followed by INIDEP (e.g. CFP Resolutions Nº 4/2016, Nº 17/2016, Nº 18/2016), except for Patagonian cod.

×

Habitat Subscores

Different components has different justification at the fishery level. Please look at the individual fisheries using the selection drop down above.

A map of main benthic invertebrate groups was presented ranging from 34° to 56° S.  Many identified groups are considered as indicator taxa of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VME), e.g. porifera, bryozoans, hydroids, echinoderms. The highest richness areas were identified in Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands) and around Tierra del Fuego. Research on habitats status is improving since 2014 (Gaitán and Mari 2016),(Alemany et al. 2014)(Alemany et al. 2016), although is not part of a plan. 

Different components has different justification at the fishery level. Please look at the individual fisheries using the selection drop down above.

The strategy to protect priority habitats from fishery impacts is via areas closed for trawl fishing, such as: (1) area for the protection of hake juveniles (CFP Act N° 265/2000); (2) area for the protection of Patagonian toothfish juveniles (CFP Act N° 17/2002); (3) area closed for all trawling fisheries (Argentinean Federal Law Nº 23.968); and (4) first marine protected area (MPA) Namuncurá – Banco Burdwood (Law Nº 26.875) created in 2013 (MEyFP 2013)

This MPA includes the main fishing areas in the hoki fishery (MEyFP 2013). This MPA objectives are: a) conservation of an area of high environmental sensitivity and importance for the protection and sustainable management of the biodiversity of the seabed; b) promotion of the sustainable, environmental and economic management of the benthic marine ecosystems of our platform through a demonstration area; and c) facilitation of scientific research oriented towards the application of the ecosystem approach in fisheries and the mitigation of the effects of global change (MEyFP 2013)(MAyDS 2016). Monitoring is done through the VMS system and enforcement and compliance are not flagged as a problem (Morsan et al. 2018).

×

Ecosystem Subscores

There is no information to allow for assessment of the impacts of the fishery on ecosystem structure and processes, as there are no ecosystem or multispecies models that include fisheries impacts. 

There is substantial, reliable information allowing for the characterization of the ecosystem and the definition of the ecosystem reference state. Fishery ecosystems have been identified in the Argentine Sea. Since the promulgation of the first MPA in Argentina, in 2013, and establishment of the National System of Marine Protected Areas in 2014, information on ecosystems at finer scale has been published (MAyDS 2016). Main areas with ecological importance include the austral slope and and Burdwood Bank and its slope, where the hoki fishery operates. The key element of the ecosystem is the presence of Malvinas Current (cold and rich in nutrients) (Morsan et al. 2018). It flows along the slope generating oceanographic structures, such as fronts, which are discontinuities in the marine environment influencing the ecology of marine organisms. This system brings several services like nutrient recycling from the bottom, carbon dioxide absortion (specially associated to fronts) and antropogenic use (transport and fisheries). Frontal systems are characterized by high primary and secondary production that is transferred to higher trophic levels within the regional food web (Alemany et al. 2014). A study on the trophic web of fish community between 45° and 54° S found that the community was strongly supported by zooplankton (Morsan et al. 2018).  A Magellanic corridor is being proposed  as one of the 3 corridors to integrate key ecological areas in the Argentine EEZ (MAyDS 2016).  

Different components has different justification at the fishery level. Please look at the individual fisheries using the selection drop down above.

There is a MPA in one of the key identified ecological areas to manage the potential impacts of this and other fisheries in the region (MAyDS 2016), and enforcement or compliance is not flagged as a problem (Morsan et al. 2018)

HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE RISK

High Medium Low

This indicates the potential risk of human rights abuses for all fisheries operating within this stock or assessment unit. If there are more than on risk level noted, individual fisheries have different levels. Click on the "Select Scores" drop-down list for your fisheries of interest.

To see data for biomass, please view this site on a desktop.
To see data for catch and tac, please view this site on a desktop.
To see data for fishing mortality, please view this site on a desktop.
No data available for recruitment
No data available for recruitment
To see data for management quality, please view this site on a desktop.
To see data for stock status, please view this site on a desktop.
DATA NOTES
  1. A harvest control rule has been recently approved (GIUSSI et al. 2017), which provides a mechanism to reduce gradually fishing mortality (F) from Ftarget (F40%SSB0) if biomass is below the target level, and to reduce it in a more drastic manner if biomass falls below the limit reference point; however this F at low biomass is not clearly defined. 
  2. In 2015 and 2016, the average of advised catch options in INIDEP reports was computed in the datasheet and used to calculate Managers Compliance score (GIUSSI et al. 2014)(GIUSSI et al. 2015). For 2017 and 2018, explicit recommended catch limits were given by INIDEP, thus these volumes were computed (GIUSSI et al. 2016)(GIUSSI et al. 2017).
  3. Catches sum national and foreign fleets (currently Falkland Islands and Spain) inside and outside the Argentinean Economic Exclusive Zone; national catches include estimated rates of misreporting and discarding (GIUSSI et al. 2017).
  4. Dynamic limit and target biomass reference points have been adopted in 2016 by INIDEP (GIUSSI et al. 2016)(GIUSSI et al. 2017). Fishing mortality estimates are relative to Ftarget (F40%SSB0), a scientifically advised target removal rate (GIUSSI et al. 2017), associated to the target biomass reference point (Btrp = 40%SSB0).
  5. However, these new reference points are not supported by the stock-recruitment series available in last stock assessment reports (GIUSSI et al. 2016)(GIUSSI et al. 2017); therefore, precautionary qualitative scores for the Current and Future health of the stock were assigned to consider current uncertainties. Mouse-over on these scores for more detail.  

Download Source Data

Registered users can download the original data file for calculating the scores after logging in. If you wish, you can Register now.

Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs)

No related FIPs

Certifications

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)

SELECT MSC

NAME

Argentine hoki (Macruronus magellanicus) bottom and mid-water trawl fishery

STATUS

MSC Recertified on 24 May 2012

SCORES

Principle Level Scores:

Principle Score
Principle 1 – Target Species 82.5
Principle 2 - Ecosystem 81.3
Principle 3 – Management System 92.9

Certification Type: Silver

Sources

Credits
  1. BirdLife International (BI), 2012a. Macronectes giganteus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012: e.T22697852A40185103. [accessed 04 February 2016]http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012-1.RLTS.T22697852A40185103.en
  2. BirdLife International (BI), 2012b. Daption capense. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012: e.T22697879A40191317. [accessed 04 February 2016]http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012-1.RLTS.T22697879A40191317.en
  3. BirdLife International (BI), 2012c. Ardenna gravis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012: e.T22698201A40209759. [accessed 04 February 2016]http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012-1.RLTS.T22698201A40209759.en
  4. BirdLife International (BI), 2014a. Thalassarche melanophris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T22698375A62709733. [accessed 04 February 2016]http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2014-2.RLTS.T22698375A62709733.en
  5. BirdLife International (BI), 2015a. Pterodroma incerta. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T22698084A84681773 [accessed 04 February 2016]http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22698084/0
  6. BirdLife International (BI), 2015b. Procellaria aequinoctialis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T22698140A83475793. [accessed 04 February 2016]http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T22698140A83475793.en
  7. Centro Desarrollo y Pesca Sustentable (CeDePesca), 2010. Merluza de cola argentina Macruronus magellanicus - Ficha Técnica de la Pesquería - actualizada en octubre de 2010. (In Spanish.)http://www.cedepesca.net/cedepesca_pesquerias/PDFs/merluza_de_cola_argentina_Informe_CeDePesca_Octubre_2010.pdf
  8. Cohen, D.M., T.Inada, T.Iwamoto, N.Scialabba, 1990. FAO species catalogue. Vol. 10. Gadiform fishes of the world (Order Gadiformes). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of cods, hakes, grenadiers and other gadiform fishes known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis. No. 125, Vol. 10. Rome, FAO.ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/t0243e/T0243E00.pdf
  9. Consejo Federal Pesquero (CFP), 2009. Resolución 17/2009: Establécese la Captura Máxima Permisible para el año 2009 para determinadas especies. Issued at Buenos Aires, October 1st, 2009. Link accessed on December 18th, 2009. http://infoleg.mecon.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/155000-159999/158484/norma.htm
  10. Consejo Federal Pesquero (CFP), 2010. Resolución 14/10.http://www.cfp.gov.ar/resoluciones/res14-10.pdf
  11. Consejo Federal Pesquero, 2011. Resolución 18 (15-12-10) Se establece la Captura Maxima Permisible de las especies merluza hubbsi, merluza de cola, merluza negra y polaca para el año 2011 (Ley Nº 24.922). (In Spanish.)http://www.cfp.gov.ar/resoluciones/res18-2010.pdf
  12. Consejo Federal Pesquero (CFP), 2012a. Resolución 12-2012. Establécense medidas de manejo y administración para ser aplicadas a la especie merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus). 12 December 2012. 4 pp. (In Spanish.)http://www.cfp.gob.ar/resoluciones/Resolucion%2022%20(13-12-12)%20medidas%20manejo%20merluza%20de%20cola.pdf
  13. Consejo Federal Pesquero (CFP), 2012b. Resolución 26-2012. Establécese la Captura maxima Permisible para el año 2013, de las especies merluza común, merluza de cola, merluza negra y polaca. (In Spanish.)http://www.cfp.gob.ar/resoluciones/Resolucion%2026%20(19-12-12)%20CMP%20hubbsi%20cola%20negra%20y%20polaca%202013.pdf
  14. Consejo Federal Pesquero (CFP), 2013a. Resolución 5 (23-05-13). (In Spanish.)http://www.cfp.gob.ar/resoluciones/Resolucion%205%20(23-05-13)%20%20Modificacion%20res%2026-12%20CMP%20merluza%20de%20cola.pdf
  15. Consejo Federal Pesquero (CFP), 2013b. Resolución 16-2013. Establécese la Captura maxima Permisible para el año 2014, de las especies merluza común, merluza de cola, merluza negra y polaca. 16 December 2013. (In Spanish.)http://infoleg.mecon.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/220000-224999/223799/norma.htm
  16. Consejo Federal Pesquero (CFP), 2014a. Resolución N°18/2014. Establécese la Captura Máxima Permisible para el año 2015, de las especies merluza común, merluza de cola y polaca. 11 December 2014. (In Spanish).http://www.cfp.gob.ar/resoluciones/Resolucion%2018%20(12-12-13)%20CMP%20cola,%20polaca%20y%20hubbsi%202015.pdf
  17. Consejo Federal Pesquero (CFP), 2014b. Acta N°31/2014. Apruébase la realización de una prueba piloto para ensayar la logística de la implementación de las líneas espantapájaros (LEPs) en la flota congeladora arrastrera. 12 pp. (In Spanish). http://www.cfp.gob.ar/actas/ACTA%20CFP%2031-2014.pdf
  18. Consejo Federal Pesquero (CFP), 2014c. Resolución N°13/2015. Establécese la Captura Máxima Permisible para el año 2016, de las especies merluza común, merluza de cola y polaca. 03 December 2015. (In Spanish)http://www.cfp.gob.ar/resoluciones/Resolucion%2013%20%20(3-12-15)%20CMP%20negra,%20cola,%20polaca%20y%20hubbsi%202016.pdf
  19. Consejo Federal Pesquero (CFP), 2015a. Resolución N°11/2015. Apruébase el Plan de Acción Nacional para Reducir la Interacción de Mamíferos Marinos con Pesquerías en la República Argentina (PAN-Mamíferos), cuyo texto se adjunta como Anexo I del Acta del Consejo Federal Pesquero N° 46/2015. 3 December 2015. 4 pp. (In Spanish)http://www.cfp.gob.ar/resoluciones/Resolucion%2011%20(26-11-15)%20PAN-Mamiferos%20Marinos.pdf
  20. Consejo Federal Pesquero (CFP), 2015b. ANEXO I - ACTA CFP N° 46/2015. Plan de Acción Nacional Para Reducir La Interacción De Mamíferos Marinos Con Pesquerías En La República Argentina 13 December 2015. 162 pp (In Spanish)http://www.cfp.gob.ar/actas/ANEXO%20I%20-%20Acta%20CFP%20Nro%2046-2015%20PAN%20MM.pdf
  21. Fordham, S., Fowler, S.L., Coelho, R., Goldman, K.J. & Francis, M. 2006. Squalus acanthias. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2006: e.T39326A10201416 [accessed 04 February 2016]http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2006.RLTS.T39326A10201416.en
  22. Gaitán, E., Souto, V. & C. Bremec, 2014. Caracterización de los principales grupos de invertebrados bentónicos presentes en los fondos de pesca de merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) entre los 34° y 36° S. Inf. de Invest. N° 56/2014, INIDEP: 17pp.Inf_Inv_056_14.pdf
  23. Giussi, A.R. Di MArco, E.J. Zavatteri, A. Wohler, O.C. 2012. Evaluatión de abundancia de Merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) del Atlántico sudoccidental. Périodo 1985-2011. INIDEP Official Technical Report nº 40. 21 pages.inftec_040_12.pdf
  24. Giussi, A.R., E.J. Di Marco, A. Zavatteri, O.C. Wohler, 2013a. Actualización de las Capturas Biológicamente Aceptables de la merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) del Atlántico Sudoccidental correspondientes al año 2013. INIDEP Informe Técnico Oficial nº 009. 21 pages.Inf_Tec_009_13.pdf
  25. Giussi, A.R., E.J. Di Marco, A. Zavatteri, S. and O.C. Wohler, 2013b. Evaluatión de abundancia de Merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) del Atlántico sudoccidental. Período 1985-2012. INIDEP Official Technical Report nº 30-2013. 24 pp. (In Spanish.)Inf_Tec_030_13.pdf
  26. Giussi, A., Di Marco, E. J. & A. Zavaterri, 2014b. Índice de abundancia de merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) obtenido a partir de buques de la flota comercial argentina con observador científico a bordo. Período 2003-2013. Inf. de Invest. N° 55/2014, INIDEP: 12pp. Inf_Inv_055_14.pdf
  27. Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero (INIDEP), 2011. Informe Técnico Oficial 037, Evaluación de la abundáncia de la población de Merluza de cola Macruronus magellanicus en el Atlántico Sudoccidental entre los años 1985 y 2010, 22p.inftec_037_11.pdf
  28. IUCN, 2015. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. [Assessed on 19 January 2015.http://www.iucnredlist.org
  29. Kyne,P.M., Lamilla, J., Licandeo, R.R., Jimena San Martín, M., Stehmann, M.F.W. & McCormack, C. 2007. Zearaja chilensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2007: e.T63147A12623314 [accessed 04 February 2016]http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2007.RLTS.T63147A12623314.en
  30. Marí, N. & A. Giussi, 2014. Captura de merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) y otras especies en la flota arrastrera argentina que tiene asignación de cuota de captura. Período 2010-2013. Inf. de Invest. N° 57/2014, INIDEP: 12pp.Inf_Inv_057_14.pdf
  31. Niklitschek, E. J., Secor, D., Toledo, P.,Valenzuela, X., Cubillos, L., and Zuleta, A. Nursery systems for Patagonian grenadier off Western Patagonia: large inner sea or narrow continental shelf? – ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi.10.1093/icesjms/fst129. http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/11/15/icesjms.fst129.full.pdf+html
  32. Prenski, L. B., Morales-Yokobori, M. L., Minte Vera, C., Bridi, J., Landa, P., Di Giacomo, E., Perier, M. 2012. Public Certification Report, Assessment against MSC Principles and Criteria for Argentine Hoki (Macruronus magellanicus), Bottow and Semi pelagic Trawl net fishery. Organización International Agropecuaria, May 2012. 822 pp.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/south-atlantic-indian-ocean/argentine_hoki/assessment-downloads-1/HOKI%20Public%20Certification%20Report.pdf
  33. Prenski, L. B., Sésar, G., Medina Foucher, C. A. 2015. 3rd Surveillance Report. Assessment against MSC Principles and Criteria for: Argentine hoki fishery (Macruronus magellanicus) Certificate code: F-OIA-P-0300, Organización Internacional Agropecuaria, 87pp.https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/south-atlantic-indian-ocean/argentine_hoki/assessment-downloads-1/20150820_SR_HOK169.pdf
  34. Prenski L.; Morales-Yokobori M., Bridi R., Medina Foucher C., 2013. Surveillance Report: Assessment against MSC Principles and Criteria for: Argentine Hoki Fishery (Macruronus magellanicus). Organización Internacional Agropecuaria, July 19th 2013. 42 http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/south-atlantic-indian-ocean/argentine_hoki/assessment-downloads-1/20130730_SR_HOK169.pdf
  35. Prenski L.; Sesar, G.; Medina Foucher C., 2014. Surveillance Report: Assessment against MSC Principles and Criteria for: Argentine Hoki Fishery (Macruronus magellanicus). Organización Internacional Agropecuaria, Sept. 5th 2014. 27 pp. http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/south-atlantic-indian-ocean/argentine_hoki/assessment-downloads-1/20140910_SR_HOK169.pdf
  36. Schuchert, P. C., Arkhipkin, A. I. and Koenig, A. E., 2010. Traveling around Cape Horn: Otolith chemistry reveals a mixed stock of Patagonian hoki with separate Atlantic and Pacific spawning grounds. Fisheries Research, 102, 1–2: 80-86 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783609002768
  37. Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentos (SAGPyA). 2010. Desembarques de capturas marítimas totales por especie y flota (1/01/09 – 29/12/09). Link accessed on January 5th, 2010.http://www.minagri.gob.ar/SAGPyA/pesca/pesca_maritima/02-desembarques/lectura.php?imp=1&tabla=especie_flota_2009
  38. Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentos (SAGPyA). 2010. Vessel Satellite Monitoring. Link accessed on January 5th, 2010.http://www.minagri.gob.ar/SAGPyA/pesca/pesca_maritima/05-monitoreo_satelital/zee.php
  39. Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentos (SAGPyA). 2010. Vessel Satellite Monitoring. Link accessed on January 5th, 2010.http://www.minagri.gob.ar/SAGPyA/pesca/pesca_maritima/05-monitoreo_satelital/zonas.php?imp=1
  40. Stevens, J., Fowler, S.L., Soldo, A., McCord, M., Baum, J., Acuña, E., Domingo, A. & Francis, M. 2006. Lamna nasus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2006: e.T11200A3261697 [accessed 04 February 2016]http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2006.RLTS.T11200A3261697.en

Aditional references (without direct web links)

  1. Giussi, A.; Wöhler, O. 2005. Evaluación de la abundancia de merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) en el Atlántico Sudoccidental. Período 1985-2004. INIDEP Official Technical Report N° 29. 25 pages.
  2. Giussi, A.; Wöhler, O. 2006. Evaluación de la abundancia de merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) en el Atlántico Sudoccidental. Período 1985-2005. INIDEP Official Technical Report N° 23. 22 pages.
  3. Giussi, A.; Wöhler, O. 2007. Evaluación de la abundancia de merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) en el Atlántico Sudoccidental. Período 1985-2006. INIDEP Official Technical Report N° 28. 23 pages.
  4. Giussi, A.; Wöhler, O. 2008. Evaluación de la abundancia de merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) en el Atlántico Sudoccidental. Período 1985-2007. INIDEP Official Technical Report N° 52. 23 pages.
  5. Giussi, A.; Wöhler, O. 2009. Evaluación de la abundancia de merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) en el Atlántico Sudoccidental. Período 1985-2008. INIDEP Official Technical Report N° 37. 24 pages.
  6. Giussi, A.; Wöhler, O. 2010. Evaluación de la abundancia de merluza de cola (Macruronus magellanicus) en el Atlántico Sudoccidental. Período 1985-2009. INIDEP Official Technical Report N° 25/2010. 24 pages.
References

    Comments

    This tab will disappear in 5 seconds.

    Comments on:

    Patagonian grenadier - Argentine

    comments powered by Disqus