argentina/southwest atlantic pots - ocean wise€¦ · pesquero [cfp]) and provincial governments...

Southern king crab

Lithodes santolla

©Monterey Bay Aquarium

Argentina/Southwest Atlantic

Pots

July 10, 2017

Seafood Watch Consulting Researcher

DisclaimerSeafood Watch strives to have all Seafood Reports rev iewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology,fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific rev iew, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or itsrecommendations on the part of the rev iewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch Standard used in this assessment: Standard for Fisheries vF3

®

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Table of Contents

About Seafood Watch

Guiding Principles

Summary

Final Seafood Recommendations

Introduction

Assessment

Criterion 1: Impacts on the Species Under Assessment

Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species

Criterion 3: Management Effectiveness

Criterion 4: Impacts on the Habitat and Ecosystem

Acknowledgements

References

Appendix A: Extra By Catch Species

Appendix B: Interactions with other species

2

About Seafood WatchMonterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught andfarmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafoodas originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in thelong-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch makes itsscience-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can bedownloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important oceanconservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans.

Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood WatchAssessment. Each assessment synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystemscience on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at arecommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” This ethic is operationalized in the SeafoodWatch standards, available on our website here. In producing the assessments, Seafood Watch seeks outresearch published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of informationinclude government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and otherscientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch Research Analysts also communicate regularly withecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations whenevaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic;as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch’s sustainability recommendations and theunderlying assessments will be updated to reflect these changes.

Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems arewelcome to use Seafood Watch assessments in any way they find useful.

3

Guiding PrinciplesSeafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished or farmed that canmaintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affectedecosystems.

The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that fisheries must possess to be considered sustainableby the Seafood Watch program (these are explained further in the Seafood Watch Standard for Fisheries):

Follow the principles of ecosystem-based fisheries management.Ensure all affected stocks are healthy and abundant.Fish all affected stocks at sustainable levels.Minimize bycatch.Have no more than a negligible impact on any threatened, endangered or protected species.Managed to sustain the long-term productivity of all affected species.Avoid negative impacts on the structure, function or associated biota of aquatic habitats where fishingoccurs.Maintain the trophic role of all aquatic life.Do not result in harmful ecological changes such as reduction of dependent predator populations, trophiccascades, or phase shifts.Ensure that any enhancement activities and fishing activities on enhanced stocks do not negatively affect thediversity, abundance, productivity, or genetic integrity of wild stocks.

These guiding principles are operationalized in the four criteria in this standard. Each criterion includes:

Factors to evaluate and scoreGuidelines for integrating these factors to produce a numerical score and rating

Once a rating has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommendation. Criteria ratings andthe overall recommendation are color coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guideand online guide:

Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught in ways that cause little harm to habitats or other wildlife.

Good Alternative/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught.

Avoid/Red Take a pass on these for now. These items are overfished or caught in ways that harm othermarine life or the environment.

“Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates

1

1

4

SummaryThe southern king crab (Lithodes santolla) is a benthic crustacean inhabiting the Southwest Atlantic from Chilethrough Argentina to Uruguay and discontinuously around the Falkland Islands. This report addresses thecommercial trap fishery for this species off Argentina, primarily in San Jorge Gulf and Beagle Channel.

The southern king crab has a medium inherent vulnerability based on its reproductive mode, age at sexualmaturity, and average maximum age. There is no relevant stock assessment for this fishery, so there are noreference points to utilize. The fishing mortality is considered a high concern because landings are higher thanscientifically suggested landings; under the current extraction rates, declines in the population parameters areexpected soon.

There is limited information available on bycatch in this fishery. The most significant bycatch is likely undersizedand female southern king crab, which is released overboard due to fishery regulations. But trap modifications(escape rings and biodegradable net) are being implemented so undersized crab may escape before beingbrought up to the vessel and ghost fishing will be reduced. Also, the survival rate of released crabs is generallyhigh. Marine mammals are known to interact with trap fisheries, particularly the buoy lines, in other fisheriesaround the globe. Entanglement of marine mammals in trap lines is assumed be low in this fishery, and so isthe rate of mortality from entanglements. The marine mammal species that overlap the fishery are generallynot stocks of concern; therefore, marine mammals are not assessed as bycatch in this report. Criterion 2 isscored in this report using the unknown bycatch matrix.

The southern king crab fishery has management strategies in place but their effectiveness is uncertain, andcatch limits often exceed scientific advice. More data are required to properly assess the target stock status andensure that current regulations are appropriate. There is minimal information on bycatch in this fishery.Moreover, the fishery is developed in three jurisdictions (Chubut Province, Santa Cruz Province, and National)and there is not a common council or commission to manage the fishery (Varisco 2017).

Trap gear contacts the seafloor and occasionally can disturb the benthic habitat by dragging along the bottom.Companies fishing for southern king crab in Argentina will be required to use biodegradable net and escaperings to reduce ghost fishing and bycatch; however, these gear changes are only in the process of beingimplemented, so there is no significant mitigation in place for this fishery. Currently, escape rings are widelyemployed, but biodegradable nets (to avoid ghost fishing) are poorly used (Varisco 2017).

There are no current efforts to incorporate ecosystem effects into management approaches, but southern kingcrab is not considered a species of exceptional importance to the ecosystem.

5

Final Seafood Recommendations

Summary

Southern King Crab caught in the waters off Argentina receive an Avoid recommendation based on uncertaintyin the impact of the fishery on crab resources and an ineffective management system which has set catch limitsabove scientifically recommended levels on a regular basis.

Scoring Guide

Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishingoperations have no significant impact.

Final Score = geometric mean of the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4).

Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Critical scoresGood Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2-3.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor BycatchManagement Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern2, and no more than one Red Criterion, and noCritical scoresAvoid/Red = Final Score ≤2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy(Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Critical scores.

Because effect ive management is an essent ial component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoidrecommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).

SPECIES/FISHERY

CRITERION 1:IMPACTS ONTHE SPECIES

CRITERION 2:IMPACTS ONOTHERSPECIES

CRITERION 3:MANAGEMENTEFFECTIVENESS

CRITERION 4:HABITAT ANDECOSYSTEM

OVERALLRECOMMENDATION

Southern kingcrabArgent inaSouthwestAt lant ic, Pots,Argent ina

Red (1.53) Yellow (2.24) Red (1.00) Yellow (3.00) Avoid (1.79)

2

6

Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation

The southern king crab (Lithodes santolla) is a benthic crustacean inhabiting the Southwest Atlantic from Chilethrough Argentina to Uruguay and discontinuously around the Falkland Islands. This report addresses thecommercial trap fishery for this species off Argentina, which primarily occurs in the San Jorge Gulf.

Species Overview

The southern king crab (Lithodes santolla) is a benthic crustacean inhabiting the Southwest Atlantic from Tierradel Fuego, Argentina to Uruguay and discontinuously around the Falkland Islands (Wyngaard and Iorio 2000).Argentina supports two stocks: one is in the Beagle Channel in southern Argentina and the other is centered inthe San Jorge Gulf (Lovrich and Tapella 2014) (Varisco et al. 2017). Southern king crab attains 198 mmcarapace length (CL) and occurs to depths of 700 m (Boschi et al. 1992). This species reproduces annually, withmating in November and December and females carrying eggs for 9 to 10 months before the eggs hatch intolecithotrophic larvae (Lovrich and Vinuesa 1999) (Calcagno et al. 2004). The larval stage lasts for 19 to 129days, depending on temperature, before they settle to the benthos (Lovrich and Vinuesa 1999) (Calcagno et al.2005). Female fecundity increases with size and ranges from 900 to 32,000 eggs per batch (Vinuesa and Balzi2002) (Calcagno et al. 2005).

Fishing for the southern king crab began in the Beagle Channel, Argentina in the 1930s using gillnets, but thesewere banned and replaced with trap fishing after 1975 (Goodall et al. 1994) (Lovrich 1997). The managementof this fishery in Argentina’s federal waters is conducted by the Federal Fisheries Council (Consejo FederalPesquero [CFP]) and provincial governments (CeDePesca 2010). A decline in the yield and mean size ofcaptured individuals from 1988 to 1994 (Bertuche et al. 1990) caused a closure of the fishery in the BeagleChannel at the end of 1994 (Lovrich 1997). In 2004, Argentina allowed an experimental fishery to begin for thesouthern king crab; in 2008, this fishery officially opened as a commercial fishery in national waters from 44° to48° S—essentially, the San Jorge Gulf (CeDePesca 2010). In the San Jorge Gulf, population data for southernking crab are scarce and only available from the few years of an experimental fishery, which does not allowevaluation of the effect of this recent expanding fishery on the population (Lovrich and Tapella 2014).

In 2014, in response to the CFP demand, it opened an experimental fishery for the southern king crab from 50°to 52° S. The results showed good king crab catches; the average CPUE from the prospecting area and thefishing grounds was 2.6 and 1.1, respectively, with maximum CPUE of 11.9 and 10.2 crab/trap, respectively(Wyngaard et al. 2015).

Production Statistics

The southern king crab total landings in Argentina for the period between 2004 and 2016, considering only thepot fleet, averaged 2,212.8 tonnes with a maximum in 2012 of 4,522.2 tonnes and a minimum in 2009 of 324.8tonnes (Navarro et al. 2014) (MinAgri 2016).

Importance to the US/North American market.

2015 exports from Argentina were 2,020 tonnes to the United States, 119 tonnes to Vietnam and 57 tonnes toChina (MinAgri 2016 b).

Common and market names.

Southern king crab, king crab, southern red king crab; centolla in Spanish. The direct translation of centolla into

7

English is any marine crab.

Primary product forms

Frozen crab meat is available as whole legs and claws, split legs and claws, window cut legs and claws, andextracted crab meat (novafish.com).

8

AssessmentThis section assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) relative to the Seafood Watch Standard for Fisheries,available at www.seafoodwatch.org. The specific standard used is referenced on the title page of all SeafoodWatch assessments.

Criterion 1: Impacts on the Species Under AssessmentThis criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. Whenabundance is unknown, abundance is scored based on the species’ inherent vulnerability, which is calculatedusing a Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis. The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometricmean of the abundance and fishing mortality scores. The Criterion 1 rating is determined as follows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low ConcernScore >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate ConcernScore ≤2.2=Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical

Guiding Principles

Ensure all affected stocks are healthy and abundant.Fish all affected stocks at sustainable level.

Criterion 1 Summary

Criterion 1 Assessment

SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 1.1 - Abundance

Goal: Stock abundance and size structure of native species is maintained at a level that does not impairrecruitment or productivity.

5 (Very Low Concern) — Strong evidence exists that the population is above an appropriate targetabundance level (given the species’ ecological role), or near virgin biomass.3.67 (Low Concern) — Population may be below target abundance level, but is at least 75% of the targetlevel, OR data-limited assessments suggest population is healthy and species is not highly vulnerable.2.33 (Moderate Concern) — Population is not overfished but may be below 75% of the target abundancelevel, OR abundance is unknown and the species is not highly vulnerable.1 (High Concern) — Population is considered overfished/depleted, a species of concern, threatened orendangered, OR abundance is unknown and species is highly vulnerable.

SOUTHERN KING CRABRegion / Method |Country | CustomGroup Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

Argentina/SouthwestAtlantic Pots | Argentina

2.33: Moderate Concern 1.00: High Concern Red (1.53)

9

Factor 1.2 - Fishing Mortality

Goal: Fishing mortality is appropriate for current state of the stock.

5 (Low Concern) — Probable (>50%) that fishing mortality from all sources is at or below a sustainablelevel, given the species ecological role, OR fishery does not target species and fishing mortality is lowenough to not adversely affect its population.3 (Moderate Concern) — Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortalityrelative to a sustainable level is uncertain.1 (High Concern) — Probable that fishing mortality from all source is above a sustainable level.

SOUTHERN KING CRAB


ARGENTINA/SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS,

Moderate Concern

The only stock assessment for southern king crab was conducted in 1981–1982 for the Beagle Channel fishery(Boschi et al. 1984). This fishery was closed in 1994 (Vinuesa et al. 1996) and no assessment has beenconducted for the crab population elsewhere in Argentine waters. Surveys of the Beagle Channel fishery,which started in the 1930s (Lovrich 1997), displayed a decrease in southern king crab yield and decrease inmean size of both sexes from 1988 to 1994, indicating overexploitation of the stock (Bertuche et al. 1990).This species had exhibited a recovering trend (Lovrich and Tapella 2006) since 2003, evidenced by an increasein the proportion of ovigerous females value of approximately 85%, but in 2008, that proportion again droppedto an alarming value of about 45% (Lovrich and Tapella 2014). The population of the southern king crab in theBeagle Channel can only sustain modest landings for the local market (Lovrich and Tapella 2006).

There is no scientific assessment for the San Jorge Gulf. Population data for southern king crab are scarce andonly available from a few years of an experimental fishery; these do not allow for evaluation of the effect ofthis recent expanding fishery on the population, although the first warning signs have recently appeared dueto an increase in the proportion of ovigerous females with incomplete clutches (Firpo et al. 2016) (Varisco etal. 2016).

Because the quantitative stock assessment is lacking and there is an oscillation in recovery trends anddecreases in the catches, combined with a medium vulnerability (see PSA below), the stock status isconsidered "moderate" concern.Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (if Applicable):

Scoring Guidelines:

1) Productivity score (P) = average of the productivity attribute scores (p1, p2, p3, p4 (finfish only), p5 (finfishonly), p6, p7, and p8 (invertebrates only))

2) Susceptibility score (S) = product of the susceptibility attribute scores (s1, s2, s3, s4), rescaled as follows:S = [(s1 ∗ s2 ∗ s3 ∗ s4) – 1/ 40 ] + 1 .

3) Vulnerability score (V) = the Euclidean distance of P and S using the following formula: V = √(P + S)

Vulnerability Score range:

2 2

10

< 2.64 = Low vulnerability≥ 2.64 and ≤ 3.18 = Medium vulnerability> 3.18 = High vulnerability

PSA score = 2.10. For this reason, the species is deemed low vulnerability (based on PSA scoring tool).Detailed scoring of each attribute is shown below.

Productivity Score:

Productivity Attribute Relevant Information Score (1 = low risk, 2 = mediumrisk, 3 = high risk)

Average age at maturity 5–15 yrs2

Average maximum age 10–25 yrs 2

Fecundity 5,000–60,000 eggs 1

Average maximum size(fish only)

N/A -

Average size at maturity(fish only)

N/A -

Reproductive strategy Demersal egg layer or brooder 2

Trophic level Unknown -

Density dependence(invertebrates only)

No depensatory or compensatorydynamics demonstrated or likely

2

Susceptibility Attribute RelevantInformation

Score (1 = low risk, 2 = medium risk, 3 =high risk)

Areal overlap

(Considers all fisheries)Unknown

3

Vertical overlap

(Considers all fisheries)Unknown 3

Selectivity of fishery

(Specific to fishery underassessment)

Trap—selective 2

Post-capture mortality

(Specific to fishery underassessment)

Retained species 3

11


P = Mean (p1+p2+p3+p6+p8)

P = (2+2+1+2+2)/5

P = 1.8

Susceptibility Score:

S = [(s1*s2*s3*s4)-1/40] + 1

S = [(3*3*2*3)-1/40] + 1

S = [54-1/40] + 1

S = 2.33

Vulnerability Score:

V = √(P + S )

V = √(1.8 + 2.33 )

V = √(8.67)

V = 2.94 Medium Vulnerability

2 2

2 2

ARGENTINA/SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS,

High Concern

There is no recent stock assessment for the southern king crab and therefore no fishing mortality referencepoints. Reported landings for the period between 2004 and 2016, considering only the pot fleet, averaged2212.8 tonnes with maximum in 2012 (4522.2 tonnes) and minimum in 2009 (324.8 tonnes (Navarro et al.2014; MinAgri 2016).How these landings compare to the available crab biomass is unknown.

The southern king crab is significant bycatch in the Patagonian red shrimp (Pleoticus mulleri) and Argentinehake (Merluccius hubbsi) trawl fisheries in the San Jorge Gulf (Pettovello 1999). During fishing in 1996 and1997, 0.31% of the biomass from 34 observed Patagonian red shrimp tows was southern king crab (Pettovello1999). Mortality estimated at the beginning of handling was 19%, but this value may be greater due to thelong time of onboard handling (Varisco et al. 2017) .

Crab caught as bycatch in the shrimp fisheries cannot be landed for sale and therefore is not covered in thisreport, however the bycatch of southern king crab in these trawl fisheries is significant (Lovrich and Tapella2014). Between 2006 and 2011, the estimated bycatch was 2432 tn/year (Varisco et al. 2017).

The available data are temporally coincident with the start of exploitation of the population off the San JorgeGulf and therefore probably represent the maximum yield of this fishery, likely reflecting the pristine populationcharacteristics (Lovrich and Tapella 2014). (Wyngaard and Iorio 2000) suggested for San Jorge Gulf amaximum allowable catch of 600 tons/year for the southern king crab, but it has been surpassed since 2004.

12

Based at the current extraction rates of >1000 tons/year, declines in the population parameters are expectedin the near future (Lovrich and Tapella 2014). In the San Jorge Gulf, observers have reported a significantdecrease in catches since February 2016. This information added to previous evidence of deterioration of theresource, shows that it is essential to conduct a preliminary review of the available information and takeurgent measures (Firpo et al. 2016). For these reasons, the fishing mortality is deemed a high concern.

13

Criterion 2: Impacts on Other SpeciesAll main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated under Criterion 2. Seafood Watch definesbycatch as all fisheries-related mortality or injury to species other than the retained catch. Examples includediscards, endangered or threatened species catch, and ghost fishing. Species are evaluated using the sameguidelines as in Criterion 1. When information on other species caught in the fishery is unavailable, the fishery’spotential impacts on other species is scored according to the Unknown Bycatch Matrices, which are based on asynthesis of peer-reviewed literature and expert opinion on the bycatch impacts of each gear type. The fisheryis also scored for the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use relative to the retained catch. Todetermine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multiplied bythe discard/bait score. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low ConcernScore >2.2 and ≤=3.2=Yellow or Moderate ConcernScore ≤=2.2=Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Crtitical

Guiding Principles

Ensure all affected stocks are healthy and abundant.Fish all affected stocks at sustainable level.Minimize bycatch.

Criterion 2 Summary

Only the lowest scoring main species is/are listed in the table and text in this Criterion 2 section; a full list andassessment of the main species can be found in Appendix A.

An initial assessment of all species caught in any fishery in this report is provided in Appendix A. This serves toidentify the species for which additional assessment is required.

No significant bycatch exists and no other main species are landed for this fishery. Because there is nomonitoring of bycatch in this fishery (see Factor 3.3), the Unknown Bycatch Matrices have been used and haveidentified benthic invertebrates, finfish, corals, and other biogenic habitats as potentially caught in trap fisheries.

Marine mammals are not caught in traps, but have the potential to be entangled in buoy lines of crab traps,especially derelict ones {Donaldson et al. 2010}. Entanglement in lines from pots is not necessarily lethal; infact, {Johnson et al. 2005} found that only 18% of 17 entanglements of humpback whale (Megaptera

SOUTHERN KING CRAB - ARGENTINA/SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC - POTS - ARGENTINA

Subscore: 2.24 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 2.24

Species Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Corals and other biogenichabitats

1.00:High Concern 5.00:Low Concern Yellow (2.24)

Benthic inverts 2.33:Moderate Concern 5.00:Low Concern Green (3.41)

Finfish 2.33:Moderate Concern 5.00:Low Concern Green (3.41)

14

novaeangliae) and North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in the western North Atlantic resulted indeath. It is possible that individuals that survive an entanglement will prematurely die based on their sustainedinjuries. Still, {Johnson et al. 2005} claims that 71% of whales observed entangled by pot gear in the westernNorth Atlantic had positive outcomes. The Alaska crab pot fishery operating in the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands,and the Gulf of Alaska has reported no marine mammal interactions with almost 600 vessels operating in thefishery, and the Office of Protected Resources has listed this fishery as a category III—remote likelihood or noknown interactions {NMFS 2012}. The Southeast Alaska crab trap fishery has reported interactions withhumpback whale, but this fishery is still a category III fishery {NMFS 2012}. The Alaska crab trap fishery islarger and more extensive than the Argentine fishery, so the southern king crab fishery likely has fewerinteractions with marine mammals than the Alaskan fishery. The northeast Atlantic lobster trap fishery is acategory I fishery (frequent interactions with marine mammals), but this ranking results from the local marinemammal populations affected: North Atlantic right whale, humpback whale, and minke whale (Balaenopteraacutorostrata) {NMFS 2012}. These affected populations do not occur off Argentina, but this highlights thatmarine mammal interactions in the southern king crab fishery must be recorded. Rankings by experts of trapgear’s influence on marine mammals are low to medium in U.S. and Canadian fisheries {Chuenpagdee et al.2003} {Fuller et al. 2008}. Additionally, according to the IUCN Red List of threatened species {iucnredlist.org},only 4 of at least 30 marine mammals that occur in Argentine waters are vulnerable or endangered: spermwhale (Physeter macrocephalus), blue whale (B. musculus), sei whale (B. borealis), and fin whale (B. physalus).The global range of these species combined with the infrequency of trap line entanglements and the rarity ofmortality from entanglements renders the assessment of marine mammals as bycatch unnecessary for thefishery covered in this report.


SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 2.1 - Abundance(same as Factor 1.1 above)

Factor 2.2 - Fishing Mortality(same as Factor 1.2 above)

CORALS AND OTHER BIOGENIC HABITATS



ARGENTINA/SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS

High Concern

Corals and biogenic habitat are highly vulnerable to fishing impacts, so abundance is considered a "high"conservation concern.


Low Concern

Because traps are not mobile, the impact on corals and biogenic habitat is considered a "low" conservationconcern.

15

Factor 2.3 - Modifying Factor: Discards and Bait Use

Goal: Fishery optimizes the utilization of marine and freshwater resources by minimizing post-harvest loss. Forfisheries that use bait, bait is used efficiently.

Scoring Guidelines: The discard rate is the sum of all dead discards (i.e. non-retained catch) plus bait usedivided by the total retained catch.

RATIO OF BAIT + DISCARDS/LANDINGS FACTOR 2.3 SCORE

<100% 1

>=100 0.75


< 100%

Releases of the target species, southern king crab, do occur because regulations prohibit the landing offemale crabs or any crab under 110 mm carapace length (CL) (CeDePesca 2010). The survival of crabsbrought to the surface and subsequently discarded is high in other crab trap fisheries (93.8% survival in(Tallack 2007); 88.8% survival with exposure of –4˚ x hours or less in (Stoner 2009)); although not wellstudied, survival is likely high in this fishery as well.

The amount of bait used in this fishery is unknown; however, fisheries for king crab in Alaska have a bait usethat ranges between 11% and 60% relative to landings (NPMFC 2015). The bait type used in this fishery ishake viscera and sometimes whole hake, anchovies, and squid (Góngora 2017) (Varisco et al. 2016). There isa bait use estimate of about 1 kg per trap, or almost 1,000 kg per line. For the two vessels that operate in theSan Jorge Gulf, the estimate of bait use is about 6,000 kg per day (approximately 1,000 t during the season).The experimental fleet comprised four or five vessels, so the bait used would be nearly 40%–50% of landings(Góngora 2017).

It is expected that bait use in this fishery would fall within this range, so bait use and discard mortality is likely<100% of landings.

16

Criterion 3: Management EffectivenessFive factors are evaluated in Criterion 3: Management Strategy and Implementation, Bycatch Strategy, ScientificResearch/Monitoring, Enforcement of Regulations, and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is scored as either‘highly effective’, ‘moderately effective’, ‘ineffective,’ or ‘critical’. The final Criterion 3 score is determined asfollows:

5 (Very Low Concern) — Meets the standards of ‘highly effective’ for all five factors considered.4 (Low Concern) — Meets the standards of ‘highly effective’ for ‘management strategy and implementation‘and at least ‘moderately effective’ for all other factors.3 (Moderate Concern) — Meets the standards for at least ‘moderately effective’ for all five factors.2 (High Concern) — At a minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management Strategy andImplementation and Bycatch Strategy, but at least one other factor is rated ‘ineffective.’1 (Very High Concern) — Management Strategy and Implementation and/or Bycatch Management are‘ineffective.’0 (Critical) — Management Strategy and Implementation is ‘critical’.

The Criterion 3 rating is determined as follows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low ConcernScore >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate ConcernScore ≤2.2 = Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if Management Strategy and Implementation is Critical.

GUIDING PRINCIPLE

The fishery is managed to sustain the long-term productivity of all impacted species.

Criterion 3 Summary


Factor 3.1 - Management Strategy and Implementation

Considerations: What type of management measures are in place? Are there appropriate management goals,and is there evidence that management goals are being met? Do manages follow scientific advice? To achieve ahighly effective rating, there must be appropriately defined management goals, precautionary policies that arebased on scientific advice, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful atmaintaining/rebuilding species.

FisheryManagementStrategy

BycatchStrategy

ResearchandMonitoring Enforcement

StakeholderInclusion Score

Fishery 1: Argentina /Southwest Atlantic | Pots |Argentina

Ineffective ModeratelyEffective

Ineffective ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

Red(1.00)

ARGENTINA / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS

Ineffective

17

Factor 3.2 - Bycatch Strategy

Considerations: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of the fisheryon bycatch species and when applicable, to minimize ghost fishing? How successful are these managementmeasures? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, the fishery must have no or low bycatch, or if there are bycatchor ghost fishing concerns, there must be effective measures in place to minimize impacts.

The fishery is conducted mainly with traps, and all female and undersized crab and fish bycatch must bereleased (CeDePesca 2010). The fishery is closed from 15 June to 30 September each year for stockprotection (molt of the males), and a maximum number of traps per boat (4,500) is in place (CeDePesca2010). The effectiveness of the management is unknown because no stock assessments have been conductedand the fishery is relatively new (commercially opened in 2004).

The Federal Fisheries Council (Consejo Federal Pesquero [CFP]) has implemented some managementstrategies outlined above (CeDePesca 2010), but there is a lack of evidence that management strategies arecurrently sufficient to promote long-term sustainability. In May of 2013, the CFP enacted a new provincial law(Act 931) that enables fishing for crab in an area that was closed for the last 19 years in the Beagle Channelregion. This new law imposes time closures without biological support (Lovrich et al. 2014). An analysis of themost recent fishing seasons in the Patagonia region showed a reduction of 25% in the total landings of crab,which was the largest reduction in the Chubut sector (Firpo et al. 2016). Because southern king crab iscaptured as target by the trap fleet and as bycatch in the trawl fishery, there is a need to investigate theseeffects on the king crab population. The bycatch of southern king crab in trawl fisheries is significant (Lovrichand Tapella 2014). Trawling has king crab as a regular component of its bycatch, and current regulations statethat the crab caught must be returned to the sea immediately. But there is uncertainty regarding the survivallevels of this bycatch (Iorio et al. 2013). The main problem with southern king crab bycatch is the detrimentaleffect on its reproductive potential because of the increase in the proportion of non-ovigerous females and themortality of ovigerous females, along with extensive handling (which can also result in a significant egg loss)(Varisco et al. 2017).

The fishery had been going through the MSC certification process but has recently withdrawn. There aremanagement measures in place, but their effectiveness is unknown. Also, it is likely that the fishery is havingserious negative impacts on retained populations because the management agency sets catch limits abovescientifically recommended levels or otherwise disregards scientific advice. Although management measuresare in place, there is no overarching framework to ensure consistent management across different regions.For these reasons, the management strategy is deemed "ineffective."


Moderately Effective

The fishery has no or very low (< 5%) bycatch (including any unintended or unmanaged catch, even ifretained), with no bycatch of species of concern. The CFP 19/08 law requires the identification of the trap andthe use of deactivation mechanisms, such as biodegradable net, to prevent ghost fishing if the trap is lost. TheLEY No. 931 (Argentina 2013) imposes sanctions on anyone who loses traps. But there are situations in whichsmall boats abandoned their traps into the sea for economic reasons (Varisco 2017). According to (CeDePesca2010), there is noncompliance with these rules. For these reasons, the bycatch strategy is deemed"moderately effective."

18

Factor 3.3 - Scientific Research and Monitoring

Considerations: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the fishery’s impact on the species?Is there adequate monitoring of bycatch? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, regular, robust populationassessments must be conducted for target or retained species, and an adequate bycatch data collectionprogram must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are met.

Factor 3.4 - Enforcement of Management Regulations

Considerations: Do fishermen comply with regulations, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly Effectiverating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.

Factor 3.5 - Stakeholder Inclusion

Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders areindividuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the managementof the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conservation groups, etc.). A Highly Effective rating is given if the managementprocess is transparent, if high participation by all stakeholders is encouraged, and if there a mechanism toeffectively address user conflicts.


Ineffective

There is knowledge of the reproduction of southern king crab (e.g., (Lovrich and Vinuesa 1999) (Vinuesa andBalzi 2002) (Calcagno et al. 2004) (Calcagno et al. 2005)), but no fishery stock assessment in the San JorgeGulf to date. Catch data are being collected from fishery observers that will enable a stock assessment to beundertaken (CeDePesca 2010), but in actuality, these data are not analyzed as part of a stock assessment—either a data-rich or a data-limited assessment. The data available to date that are external to the Argentinegovernment are insufficient to determine stock status. In the king crab fishery, the focus of the onboardobservers’ work is to collect information of the crab captures. There is no monitoring of bycatch species,including marine mammal interactions. For these reasons, the scientific research and monitoring is deemed"ineffective."



Each vessel must carry an observer on board (CeDePesca 2010). The effectiveness of enforcement overall isunknown. The enforcement of management regulations is deemed "moderately effective."



The management of the fishery is under the jurisdiction of the Argentine government (national and provincial),and the input of stakeholders at the management level is unknown. Stakeholder inclusion is deemed"moderately effective."

19

Criterion 4: Impacts on the Habitat and EcosystemThis Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if there aremeasures in place to mitigate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the ecosystem and food web and theuse of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem Based FisheriesManagement aims to consider the interconnections among species and all natural and human stressors on theenvironment. The final score is the geometric mean of the impact of fishing gear on habitat score (factor 4.1 +factor 4.2) and the Ecosystem Based Fishery Management score. The Criterion 4 rating is determined asfollows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low ConcernScore >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate ConcernScore ≤2.2=Red or High Concern

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Avoid negative impacts on the structure, function or associated biota of marine habitats where fishingoccurs.Maintain the trophic role of all aquatic life.Do not result in harmful ecological changes such as reduction of dependent predator populations, trophiccascades, or phase shifts.Ensure that any enhancement activities and fishing activities on enhanced stocks do not negatively affect thediversity, abundance, productivity, or genetic integrity of wild stocks.Follow the principles of ecosystem-based fisheries management.

Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.

Criterion 4 Summary


SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 4.1 - Physical Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate

Goal: The fishery does not adversely impact the physical structure of the ocean habitat, seafloor or associatedbiological communities.

5 - Fishing gear does not contact the bottom4 - Vertical line gear3 - Gears that contacts the bottom, but is not dragged along the bottom (e.g. gillnet, bottom longline, trap)and is not fished on sensitive habitats. Or bottom seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Or midwater trawlthat is known to contact bottom occasionally. Or purse seine known to commonly contact the bottom.2 - Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Or gillnet, trap, or bottomlongline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Or bottom seine except on mud/sand. Or there isknown trampling of coral reef habitat.

Region / MethodGear Type andSubstrate

Mitigation of GearImpacts EBFM Score

Argentina / Southwest Atlantic/ Pots

3 0 ModerateConcern

Yellow(3.00)

20

1 - Hydraulic clam dredge. Or dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive habitats (e.g., cobble orboulder)0 - Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and maerl) Note: When multiple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classification is uncertain,the score will be based on the most sensitive, plausible habitat type.

Factor 4.2 - Modifying Factor: Mitigation of Gear Impacts

Goal: Damage to the seafloor is mitigated through protection of sensitive or vulnerable seafloor habitats, andlimits on the spatial footprint of fishing on fishing effort.

+1 —>50% of the habitat is protected from fishing with the gear type. Or fishing intensity is very low/limitedand for trawled fisheries, expansion of fishery’s footprint is prohibited. Or gear is specifically modified toreduce damage to seafloor and modifications have been shown to be effective at reducing damage. Or thereis an effective combination of ‘moderate’ mitigation measures.+0.5 —At least 20% of all representative habitats are protected from fishing with the gear type and for trawlfisheries, expansion of the fishery’s footprint is prohibited. Or gear modification measures or other measuresare in place to limit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spatial footprint of damage caused from fishing thatare expected to be effective.0 —No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats or not applicable because gear usedis benign and received a score of 5 in factor 4.1

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

Goal: All stocks are maintained at levels that allow them to fulfill their ecological role and to maintain afunctioning ecosystem and food web. Fishing activities should not seriously reduce ecosystem services providedby any retained species or result in harmful changes such as trophic cascades, phase shifts or reduction ofgenetic diversity. Even non-native species should be considered with respect to ecosystem impacts. If a fisheryis managed in order to eradicate a non-native, the potential impacts of that strategy on native species in theecosystem should be considered and rated below.

5 — Policies that have been shown to be effective are in place to protect species’ ecological roles andecosystem functioning (e.g. catch limits that ensure species’ abundance is maintained at sufficient levels toprovide food to predators) and effective spatial management is used to protect spawning and foragingareas, and prevent localized depletion. Or it has been scientifically demonstrated that fishing practices donot have negative ecological effects.4 — Policies are in place to protect species’ ecological roles and ecosystem functioning but have not provento be effective and at least some spatial management is used.3 — Policies are not in place to protect species’ ecological roles and ecosystem functioning but detrimentalfood web impacts are not likely or policies in place may not be sufficient to protect species’ ecological rolesand ecosystem functioning.2 — Policies are not in place to protect species’ ecological roles and ecosystem functioning and the likelihoodof detrimental food impacts are likely (e.g. trophic cascades, alternate stable states, etc.), but conclusivescientific evidence is not available for this fishery.1 — Scientifically demonstrated trophic cascades, alternate stable states or other detrimental food webimpact are resulting from this fishery.

Factor 4.1 - Physical Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate


21

Factor 4.2 - Modifying Factor: Mitigation of Gear Impacts

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

3

This fishery is conducted using traps or pots. Trap fishing for crustaceans affects the ecosystem by resting onand incidentally dragging across the seafloor—this can destroy habitat and crush benthic organisms(Donaldson et al. 2010). Ecosystem damage by traps was deemed 38/100 from expert ranking for U.S.fisheries (Chuenpagdee et al. 2003) and 44/100 for Canadian fisheries (Fuller et al. 2008). Similar impactsare assumed to occur in this fishery. The score deemed to physical impact of fishing gear on thehabitat/substrate is 3.


0

Biodegradable net would reduce the impact on the habitat through reduced entangling of benthic organisms,but reducing derelict crab traps entirely is still necessary. Measures to reduce ghost fishing by derelict crabtraps have been shown to be effective (VIMS 2009). For the San Jorge Gulf, there are temporal closures(Lovrich and Tapella 2014) and a coastal marine protected area in the northern region (Argentina 2017). Forthe Beagle Channel region, most fishery closures are temporal, but there are some spatial closures inaccordance with Ley No. 931 (Argentina 2013). For the purposes of gear impact mitigation, these closures areinsufficient to protect the seabed habitats from damage. For these reasons, the mitigation of gear impacts isscored as 0.


Moderate Concern

Lithodids have opportunistic generalist feeding habits: they are predators that feed on prey that are moreabundant in the environment. Records on predators of adult lithodids are scarce. Their large size, hardness ofthe exoskeleton, and covering of spines probably confer protection against predators. The reported maincause of mortality among southern king crab likely occurs during the first juvenile stages and is caused byparasites (Vinuesa y Balzi 2008) (Lovrich and Tapella 2014) (Vinuesa et al 2015). The southern king crab isnot an exceptional species according to the Seafood Watch criteria. The greatest impact on the populationcomes from the fishing activity. The fishery regulations are as follows: (1) In both Argentina and Chile, thetrap is the unique fishing gear allowed. (2) Only males above the legal size are permitted to be landed. Legalsizes are 112 mm carapace length (CL) (120 mm CL in Chile) for L. santolla and 74 mm CL for P. granulosa.Landings of females are expressly banned. (3) In the Argentinean Beagle Channel, the total effort was limitedto 1,000 traps per season (Lovrich and Tapella 2014). For the trawl fishery, the current regulation states thatany king crab caught must be returned to the sea quickly (Iorio et al. 2013).

There are no efforts to assess the ecological impacts of this fishery at this time (CeDePesca 2010). Thefishery lacks spatial management or other policies to protect ecosystem functioning and to account forcaptured species’ ecological roles, but detrimental food web impacts are not likely. For these reasons,management of the ecosystem and food web impacts of the fishery is deemed a "moderate" concern.

22

AcknowledgementsScientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafoodrecommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for theconclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch would like to thank the consulting researcher and author of this report, Venancio Guedes deAzevedo, as well as several anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.

23

ReferencesArgentina, 2008. Argentina, 2008. Ordenamiento y administración para la pesquería de centolla (Lithodessantolla). Consejo Federal Pesquero. Resolucion CFP N°19/08. 8 p.

Argentina, 2013. Argentina, 2013. Captura de Lithodes santolla (centolla) y Paralomis granulosa (centollón).Regulación en aguas del Canal Beagle de jurisdicción provincial. Secretaría Legislativa - Dirección Legislativa -Departamento Informática Jurídica. 6 p.

Argentina, 2017. Observatorio Nacional de Biodiversidad. Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable de laNación.

Balzi, P., 1997. Los habitos alimenticios de la Centolla (Lithodes santolla , Molina) del Golfo San Jorge. NaturaliaPatagónica, Ciências biológicas 5: 67-87

Bertuche, D.A., J.G. Wyngaard, C.E. Fischbach, and E.E. Boschi. 1990. Population structural variation of thesouthern king crab, Lithodes santolla, of the Beagle Channel, Argentina, from 1975 to 1989. In: Proceedings ofthe International Symposium on king and tanner crabs. University of Alaska Sea Grant Report 90-04. Fairbanks.p. 441-426.

Boschi, E.E., D.A. Bertuche, and J.G. Wyngaard. 1984. Estudio biológico pesquero de la centolla (Lithodesantarcticus) del Canal Beagle, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. Contribucion INIDEP, Mar del Plata. 441: 1-72.

Bovcon, N. D., Góngora, M.E., Marinao, C. y González-Zevallos, D., 2013. Composición de las capturas ydescartes generados en la pesca de merluza común Merluccius hubbsi y langostino patagónico Pleoticusmuelleri: un caso de estudio en la flota fresquera de altura del Golfo San Jorge, Chubut, Argentina. Revista deBiología Marina y Oceanografía Vol. 48, Nº2: 303-319,

Calcagno, J.A., K. Anger, G.A. Lovrich, S. Thatje, and A. Kaffenberger. 2004. Larval development of thesubantarctic king crabs Lithodes santolla and Paralomis granulosa reared in the laboratory. Helgoland MarineResearch. 58: 11-14.

Calcagno, J.A., G.A. Lovrich, S. Thatje, U. Nettelmann, and K. Anger. 2005. First year growth in the lithodidsLithodes santolla and Paralomis granulosa reared at different temperatures. Journal of Sea Research. 54: 221-230

Cañete, J.I., Díaz-Ochoa, J.A., Figueroa, T. & Medina, A., 2017. Infestation of Pseudione tuberculata (Isopoda:Bopyridae) on juveniles of Lithodes santolla (Magellan region, Chile): a spatial mesoscale analysis. Lat. Am. J.Aquat. Res., 45(1): 79-93

Centro Desarrollo y Pesca Sustentable (CeDePesca).2010. Centolla Lithodes santolla – Ficha tenica de lapesqueria en aguas patagonicas de la republica Argentina. Centro Desarrollo y Pesca Sustentable.11 p.

Chuenpagdee, R., L.E. Morgan, S.M. Maxwell, E.A. Norse, and D. Pauly. 2003. Shifting gears: assessingcollateral impacts of fishing methods in US waters. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 1(10): 515-524.

Firpo, C., Mauna, C., Wyngaard, J., Lértora, P. y Mango, V., 2015. Evolucion de los desembarques, esfuerzopesquero y captura por unidad de esfuerzo (CPUE), en la pesquería Patagónica de centolla (Lithodes santolla),en el período 2011-2015. Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero - INIDEP. Informe TécnicoOficial 22. 12p.

24

Firpo, C., Wyngaard, J., Mauna, C. y Mango, V., 2016. Análisis preliminar de la temporada de pesca de CentollaPatagónica (Lithodes santolla), 2015-16. Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero - INIDEP.Informe Técnico Oficial 17. 13p.

Fuller, S.D., C. Picco, J. Ford, C. Tsao, L.E. Morgan, D. Hangaard, and R. Chuenpagdee. 2008. How we fishmatters: addressing the ecological impacts of Canadian fishing gear. Ecological Action Centre, Living OceansSociety and Marine Conservation Biology Institute.

Gowland-Sainz, M., Tapella, F. and Lovrich, G.A., 2015. Egg loss in females of two lithodid species followingdifferent return-to-the-water protocols. Fisheries Research 161 (2015) 77–85.

Iorio, M.I., Hernández, D. y Wyngaard, J., 2013. Estimacion de la captura incidental de centolla obtenida por laflota tangonera langostinera congeladora en el período 2003 - 2011. Instituto Nacional de Investigación yDesarrollo Pesquero – INIDEP. 15 p.

Johnson, A., G. Salvador, J. Kenney, J. Robbins, S. Kraus, S. Landry, and P. Clapham. 2005. Fishing gear involvedin entanglement of right and humpback whales. Marine Mammal Science. 21(4): 635-645.

Lovrich, G. A., 1997. La pesquería mixta de las centollas Lithodes santolla y Paralomis granulosa (Anomura:Lithodidae) en Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. Invest. Mar., Valparaíso, 25: 41-57

Lovrich, G.A., and F. Tapella. 2006. Basis for stock enhancement of Lithodes santolla in Argentina. In: Alaskacrab stock: enhancement and rehabilitation. B.G. Stevens (ed) Workshop Proceedings. Kodiak, Alaska 14-16March.

Lovrich, G.A. and Tapella, F., 2014. Southern King Crabs.In: King crabs of the world: biology and fisheriesmanagement/ edited by Bradley G. Stevens. CRC Press, 36p.

Lovrich, G. A. and Vinuesa, J. H., 1999. Reproductive potential of the lithodids Lithodes santolla and Paralomisgranulosa (Anomura, Decapoda) in the Beagle Channel, Argentina. SCI. MAR., 63 (Supl. 1): 355-360

Lovrich, G. A., Tapella, F. and Schvezov, N., 2014. El recurso centolla hoy: Una perspectiva científica dentro de laproblemática intersectorial. Technical Report CADIC-CONICET. 7p.

Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganaderia y Pesca (MinAgri). 2016 a. Desembarques.http://www.minagri.gob.ar/site/pesca/pesca_maritima/02-desembarques/index.php 2.

Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganaderia y Pesca (MinAgri). 2016b. Exportaciones e importaciones pesqueras –2015. Subsecretaria de Pesca y Acuicultura.46 p.

Morley, S.A., Belchier, M., Dickson, J. and Mulvey, T., 2006. Reproductive strategies of sub-Antarctic lithodidcrabs vary with habitat depth. Polar Biol (2006) 29: 581–584

Navarro, G., Rozycki, V. y Monsalvo, M., 2014. Estadísticas de la pesca marina en la Argentina Evolución de losdesembarques 2008-2013. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires: Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca dela Nación. 144p.

NMFS. 2012. List of Fisheries 2012. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

Pettovello, A.D. 1999. By-catch in the Patagonian red shrimp (Pleoticus muelleri) fishery. Marine and FreshwaterResources. 50: 123-127.

25

Roux, A. y Piñero, R., 2006. Crustáceos decápodos y estomatópodos asociados a la pesquería del langostinopatagónico Pleoticus muelleri (Bate, 1888) en el Golfo San Jorge, Argentina. Rev. Invest. Desarr. Pesq. nº 18:33-43

Schvezov, N., Lovrich, G.A., Florentín,O. and Romero, M.C., 2015. Baseline defense system of commercial maleking crab Lithodes santolla from the Beagle Channel. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A 181(2015) 18–26.

Souto, V., 2016. Fauna bentónica asociada a la pesquería de langostino (Pleoticus muelleri). Análisis de lainformación colectada por observadores a bordo en el periodo 2011-2014. Instituto Nacional de Investigación yDesarrollo Pesquero - INIDEP. Informe Técnico Oficial 09. 21p.

Stoner, A.W. 2009. Prediction of discard mortality for Alaskan crabs after exposure to freezing temperatures,based on a reflex impairment index. Fishery Bulletin. 107: 451-463

Tallack, S.M.L. 2007. Escape ring selectivity, bycatch, and discard survivability in the New England fishery fordeep-water red crab, Chaceon quinquedens. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 64: 1579-1586.

Tapella, F., and G.A. Lovrich. 2006. Asentamiento de estadios tempranos de las centollas Lithodes santolla yParalomis granulosa (Decapoda: Lithodidae) en colectores artificiales pasivos en el Canal Beagle, Argentina.Investigaciones Marinas, Valparaiso. 34(2): 47-55.

Tapella, F., Sotelano, M.P.,Romero, M.C. and Lovrich, G.A., 2012. Experimental natural substrate preference ofsouthern king crab Lithodes santolla larvae. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 411 (2012) 70–77

Thatje, S., Anger, k., Calcagno, J.A., Lovrich, G.A., Portner, H and Arntz, W.E., 2005. Challenging the cold: crabsreconquer the Antarctic. Ecology, 86(3), 2005, pp. 619–625

Varisco M., ME. Góngora, J. Colombo y J. Vinuesa. 2016. La pesquería de centolla en el Golfo San Jorge.Informe técnico Instituto de Desarrollo Costero. 19 p.

Varisco, M., Cochia, P., Góngora, M.E., Bovcon, N., Balzi, P. and Vinuesa, J., 2017. Bycatch of the Southern KingCrab (Lithodes santolla) in the Patagonian shrimp fishery in the Southwestern Atlantic Ocean. Can it contributeto the depletion of its population? Ocean & Coastal Management 136 (2017) 177 - 184

Vinuesa J.H. & P. Balzi. 2002. Reproductive biology of Lithodes santolla in the San Jorge Gulf. En: A. Paul, E.Dawe, R. Elner, G. Jamieson, G. Kruse, R. Otto, B. Sainte-Marie, T. Shirley y D. Woodby (eds.). Crabs in coldwater regions: biology, management and economics. University of Alaska Sea Grant, Fairbanks. pp. 283-304.

Vinuesa J.H. & P. Balzi. 2010. Infestation of Lithodes santolla (Decapoda: Lithodidae) by Pseudione tuberculata(Isopoda: Bopyridae) in San Jorge Gulf, Southern Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Biol. Res. 6: 608-612.

Vinuesa, J.H., L. Guzman, and R. Gonzalez. 1996. Overview of southern king crab and false king crab fisheries inthe Magellanic region. High Latitude Crabs: Biology, Management, and Economics. Alaska Sea Grant CollegeProgram. AK-SG-96-02: 3-11.

Vinuesa, J. H., Varisco, M.A. and Balzi, P., 2013. Feeding strategy of early juvenile stages of the southern kingcrab Lithodes santolla in the San Jorge Gulf, Argentina.Revista de Biología Marina y Oceanografía Vol. 48, Nº2:353-363

26

Wyngaard, J., and M.I. Iorio. 2000. V. Casos Especiales. Centolla (Lithodes santolla). Pesquerias de Argentina.1997-1999: 267-274

Wyngaard, J., Iorio, M.I. y Firpo C., 2014. Análisis de los desembarques y el esfuerzo pesquero en La pesqueríade la centolla patagónica (Lithodes santolla) Durante las temporadas 2011-12 y 2012-13. Instituto Nacional deInvestigación y Desarrollo Pesquero - INIDEP. Informe Técnico Oficial 31. 15p.

Wyngaard J., Firpo C. and Mauna C., 2015. Consideraciones para el desarrollo de la pesca experimental decentollas, en el sector patagónico sur. Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero - INIDEP.Informe Técnico Oficial 02. 13p.

27

Appendix A: Extra By Catch SpeciesBENTHIC INVERTS



Factor 2.3 - Discard Rate

FINFISH



Moderate Concern

Abundance of benthic invertebrates is considered to be a "moderate" conservation concern.


Low Concern

The impact of traps on benthic invertebrates is considered to be a "low" conservation concern.


< 100%





Moderate Concern

Abundance of finfish is considered to be a "moderate" conservation concern.

28


Factor 2.3 - Discard Rate


Low Concern

The impact of traps on finfish is considered to be a "low" conservation concern.


< 100%




29

Appendix B: Interactions with other speciesThis table presents a first filter of all species caught in all fisheries assessed in this report. Stocks in bold arethose for which this report provides a recommendation. A full assessment of each of these species can befound in Criterion 1. Species in italics are those which likely score most poorly of the remaining species and soare fully evaluated under Criterion 2. The assessment text for only the lowest scoring species(s) is presented inthe Criterion 2 section of this report. Species in black are those for which there is no recommendation providedand there is no particular concern over their status. They are not assessed further in this report.

False king crab (Paralomis granulosa) were not evaluated in this report because they did not constitute asignificant (> 5%) percent of the bycatch in the southern king crab fishery (MinAgri 2016 a). The false king crabis not a stock of concern based on its medium inherent resilience, and unknown stock status and fishingmortality. It has a medium inherent resilience based on its reproductive mode (brooder), approximate age atmaturation (8-9 years) and estimated average maximum age (between 10 and 25 years; (Lovrich and Vinuesa1999).

Species/Stock

Fishbasevulnerabilityscore (fishonly)

B/BMSYand/or mgmtclassification

F/FMSYand/or mgmtclassification

FisherySpecificFishingMortality(optional)

Sources

Southern king crab N/A unknown unknown

(Bertuche et al. 1990);(Vinuesa et al 1996);(MinAgri 2016a)

Marinemammals

N/A

Data deficient,least concern,vulnerable,endangered

Data deficient,least concern,vulnerable,endangered

Assumed verylow

Iucnredlist.org

False king crab N/A unknown unknown

(Lovrich and Vineusa1999); (Tapella andLovrich 2006);(MinAgri 2016 a)

30

argentina/southwest atlantic pots - ocean wise€¦ · pesquero [cfp]) and provincial governments...

Documents