CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE FUNCTIONAL RESPONSE FORMULATIONS IN MODELS EXPLORING WHALE-FISHERY INTERACTIONS

We evaluated the utility of Ecosim for exploring interactions between cetacean predators, their prey, and fisheries. We formulated six Ecosim parameterizations, representing alternative hypotheses of feeding interactions (functional response) between cetaceans and their main fish prey, and examined differences in the predicted responses to simulated harvesting regimes for minke whales and their prey. Regardless of the type of function response formulated, intense fishing on the main fish prey of minke whales had a longer-lasting negative impact on minke whales than when minke whale biomass was removed directly by harvesting. Consumption rate, biomass, feeding time and mortality of minke whales were all sensitive to the type of functional response specified. Inclusion of ‘‘handling time’’ limited minke whales consumption at high prey densities and predicted higher consumption at low prey densities; features characteristic of a type II functional response. Predicted decline and recovery rates of minke whales were slower than when consumption rates were not limited. Addition of ‘‘foraging time’’ adjustments resulted in more conservative estimates of decline and recovery. However, when ‘‘other mortality’’ was linked to time spent foraging, exposure to higher mortality at low prey densities, and reduced mortality at high prey densities resulted in dramatic differences in predicted biomass trajectory. Sensitivity to the ‘‘other mortality’’ assumption is important for cetaceans whose predation mortality is only a small proportion of total mortality. Differences in the feeding and biomass dynamics were also observed when prey availability to predators was represented by changes in prey vulnerability, confirming earlier reports that Ecosim predictions are sensitive to this parameter.

[1]  W. Bowen,et al.  Grey seal predation on the eastern Scotian Shelf: modelling the impact on Atlantic cod , 1996 .

[2]  C. Walters,et al.  Structuring dynamic models of exploited ecosystems from trophic mass-balance assessments , 1997, Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries.

[3]  K. I. Ugland,et al.  Harp seal (Phoca groenlandica) invasions in Norwegian coastal waters: age composition and feeding habits , 1991 .

[4]  M. Hunter,et al.  Playing Chutes and Ladders: Heterogeneity and the Relative Roles of Bottom‐Up and Top‐Down Forces in Natural Communities , 1992, Ecology.

[5]  John D. Stevens,et al.  The effects of fishing on sharks, rays, and chimaeras (chondrichthyans), and the implications for marine ecosystems , 2000 .

[6]  Andrew Sih,et al.  Prey refuges and predator prey stability , 1987 .

[7]  Daniel Pauly,et al.  The stability of trophic mass-balance models of marine ecosystems: a comparative analysis , 1997 .

[8]  G. Ruxton,et al.  Short Term Refuge Use and Stability of Predator-Prey Models , 1995 .

[9]  J. Steele,et al.  The role of predation in plankton models , 1992 .

[10]  M. Hassell.  The dynamics of arthropod predator-prey systems. , 1979, Monographs in population biology.

[11]  Astrid Jarre,et al.  Modelling effects of fishing in the Southern Benguela ecosystem , 2000 .

[12]  Carl J. Walters,et al.  Ecopath, Ecosim, and Ecospace as tools for evaluating ecosystem impact of fisheries , 2000 .

[13]  O. Nakken.  Past, present and future exploitation and management of marine resources in the Barents Sea and adjacent areas , 1998 .

[14]  Gao Huiwang,et al.  Functions used in biological models and their influences on simulations , 2000 .

[15]  W. Murdoch,et al.  Predation and Population Stability , 1975 .

[16]  Hilborn,et al.  Depensation: evidence, models and implications , 2001 .

[17]  R. May,et al.  Aggregation of Predators and Insect Parasites and its Effect on Stability , 1974 .

[18]  S. L. Lima,et al.  Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus , 1990 .

[19]  C. S. Holling,et al.  The functional response of predators to prey density and its role in mimicry and population regulation. , 1965 .

[20]  A. Sih.  Antipredator Responses and the Perception of Danger by Mosquito Larvae , 1986 .

[21]  Paul Tett,et al.  From biogeochemical to ecological models of marine microplankton , 2000 .

[22]  D. W. Laist,et al.  COLLISIONS BETWEEN SHIPS AND WHALES , 2001 .

[23]  J. Terborgh.  The Big Things that Run The World—A Sequel to E. O. Wilson , 1988 .

[24]  R. Mohn,et al.  Why the Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) stock off eastern Nova Scotia has not recovered , 2001 .

[25]  Tony J. Pitcher,et al.  The Use of Ecosystem Models to Investigate Multispecies Management Strategies for Capture Fisheries , 2002 .

[26]  E. Wilson.  The Little Things That Run the world* (The Importance and Conservation of Invertebrates) , 1987 .

[27]  Jonathan M. Jeschke,et al.  PREDATOR FUNCTIONAL RESPONSES: DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN HANDLING AND DIGESTING PREY , 2002 .

[28]  Villy Christensen,et al.  Representing Density Dependent Consequences of Life History Strategies in Aquatic Ecosystems: EcoSim II , 2000, Ecosystems.

[29]  J. Beddington,et al.  Marine Mammals and Fisheries , 1986 .

[30]  C. S. Holling.  The components of prédation as revealed by a study of small-mammal prédation of the European pine sawfly. , 1959 .

[31]  L. Dill.  Animal decision making and its ecological consequences: the future of aquatic ecology and behaviour , 1987 .

[32]  Carl J. Walters,et al.  Ecopath with Ecosim: methods, capabilities and limitations , 2004 .

[33]  Todd W. Anderson,et al.  PREDATOR RESPONSES, PREY REFUGES, AND DENSITY‐DEPENDENT MORTALITY OF A MARINE FISH , 2001 .