Risks of regionalized stock assessments for widely distributed species like the panmictic European eel

• Published in: ICES Journal of Marine Science
• Main Authors: Höhne, Leander, Briand, Cédric, Freese, Marko, Marohn, Lasse, Pohlmann, Jan-Dag, van der Hammen, Tessa, Hanel, Reinhold
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford University Press (OUP) 2024
• Subjects: article; Text; ddc:630; Anguilla > biomass target > regionalized fisheries management > diadromous fish > model evaluation > decentralized stock assessment; European eel
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsae069; https://www.openagrar.de/receive/openagrar_mods_00097105; https://www.openagrar.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/openagrar_derivate_00061153/dn068392.pdf

In fisheries management, accurate stock assessment is pivotal to determine sustainable harvest levels or the scope of conservation measures. When assessment is decentralized and methods differ regionally, adopted approaches must be subjected to rigorous quality-checking, as biased assessments may mislead management decisions. To enable recovery of the critically endangered European eel, EU countries must fulfill a biomass target of potential spawner (“silver eel”) escapement, while local eel stock assessment approaches vary widely. We summarize local approaches and results of ground-truthing studies based on direct silver eel monitoring, to evaluate the accuracy of eel stock assessments in retrospect and identify bias sources. A substantial fraction of eel habitat is currently unassessed or assessed by unvalidated approaches. Across assessment models for which validation exists, demographic models frequently overestimated actual escapement, while misestimations of extrapolation (“spatial”) models were more balanced, slightly underestimating escapement. Stock size overestimation may lead to overexploitation or insufficient conservation measures, increasing the risk of stock collapse or slow recovery in coordinated frameworks. Underestimations may imply inefficient allocation of conservation efforts or negatively affect socioeconomy. Our work highlights the risks of regionalizing assessment responsibilities along with management decisions, calling for a common assessment toolbox and centralized quality-checking routines for eel.