MARINE AND FISHERY SCIENCES 36 (3): 267-288 (2023)

https://doi.org/10.47193/mafis.3632023010906

ABSTRACT. At the beginning of the 1990s, the Argentine toothfish fishery gained prominence

as a consequence of the rapid expansion of trawler and longliner fleets targeting this species. This

fishing area covers the slope and shelf from 60° S to 37° S in the Argentine Exclusive Economic

Zone. The main fishing ground is located in the southern area, bordering Namuncurá-Burdwood

Bank II (NBBII) and Yaganes (Y) marine protected areas (MPA) established in 2018. In order to

determine the impact generated by MPAs on effort distribution, 308 fishing trips carried out between

2010 and 2020, which reported 82% of the total fishing effort of Argentine toothfish declared in that

period, were spatially analyzed. The Y-MPA sector categorized as National Marine Reserve and

located to the south of Tierra del Fuego reported more than half (58%) of the toothfish catch record-

ed throughout that period, while the NBBII-MPA located to the east of Tierra del Fuego and south

of De los Estados Island represented 17%. The NBBII-MPA sector established as a Strict National

Marine Reserve and located to the south of the Burdwood Bank represented 25%. With the estab-

lishment of the MPAs, 7.11% of the international requirement has been met. At the moment, effects

resulting from the creation of MPAs can only be speculated upon qualitatively, but should be quan-

tified in the near future.

Key words: Effort distribution, management, impact, southwestern Atlantic Ocean, resources.

Efectos del establecimiento de las áreas marinas protegidas en la pesquería argentina de la

merluza negra (Dissostichus eleginoides)

RESUMEN. A principios de la década de 1990, la pesquería de merluza negra argentina ganó

protagonismo gracias a la rápida expansión de las flotas de arrastre y palangre que se dirigían a esta

especie. Esta zona de pesca cubre el talud y plataforma desde los 60° S hasta los 37° S en la Zona

Económica Exclusiva argentina. El principal caladero se encuentra en la zona sur, colindando con

las áreas marinas protegidas (AMP) Banco Namuncurá-Burdwood II (NBBII) y Yaganes (Y), esta-

blecidas en 2018. Para determinar el impacto que generan las AMP en la distribución del esfuerzo,

se analizaron espacialmente 308 viajes de pesca realizados entre 2010 y 2020, que reportaron 82%

del total del esfuerzo pesquero declarado de merluza negra argentina en ese período. El sector Y-

AMP categorizado como Reserva Nacional Marina y ubicado al sur de Tierra del Fuego, reportó más

de la mitad (58%) de la captura de merluza negra registrada durante ese período, mientras que el

NBBII-AMP ubicado al este de Tierra del Fuego y sur de la Isla de los Estados representaron 17%.

El sector NBBII-AMP establecido como Reserva Nacional Marina Estricta y ubicado al sur del

Banco Burdwood representó el 25%. Con el establecimiento de las AMP se ha cumplido 7,11% del

requerimiento internacional. En la actualidad, los efectos resultantes de la creación de AMP solo

pueden especularse cualitativamente, pero deberían cuantificarse en un futuro próximo.

Palabras clave: Distribución del esfuerzo, manejo, impacto, Océano Atlántico Sudoccidental, recursos.

267

*Correspondence:

martinez@inidep.edu.ar

Received: 21 December 2022

Accepted: 2 June 2023

ISSN 2683-7595 (print)

ISSN 2683-7951 (online)

https://ojs.inidep.edu.ar

Journal of the Instituto Nacional de

Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero

(INIDEP)

This work is licensed under a Creative

Commons Attribution-

NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0

International License

Marine and

Fishery Sciences

MAFIS

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Effects of the establishment of marine protected areas on the Argentine

Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) fisheries

PATRICIA A. MARTÍNEZ*, OTTO C. WÖHLER, GONZALO H. TROCCOLI and EMILIANO J. DIMARCO

Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero (INIDEP), Paseo Victoria Ocampo Nº 1, Escollera Norte, B7602HSA -

Mar del Plata, Argentina. ORCID Gonzalo H. Troccoli https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0057-4325

INTRODUCTION

Marine protected areas (MPAs) play an impor-

tant role in the conservation and management of

our oceans and coastal ecosystems. They are des-

ignated regions within marine environments

which are legally protected and managed to safe-

guard and preserve their ecological integrity serv-

ing as refugees for marine biodiversity, protecting

sensitive habitats, and contributing to the sustain-

able use of marine resources (IUCN 2013). The

concept of MPAs has gained increasing recogni-

tion and importance due to the escalating threats

facing marine ecosystems, including overfishing,

habitat destruction, pollution, and climate change

(Claudet et al. 2019; Duarte et al. 2020). Scientif-

ic research has provided substantial evidence of

the benefits and effectiveness of MPAs in con-

serving marine biodiversity and restoring degrad-

ed ecosystems (Lester et al. 2009; Sala et al.

2021).

Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides

Smitt, 1898) is a demersal-benthic fish of the

Family Nototheniidae. It is a deep-sea, slow-

growing (Collins et al. 2010), long-lived (Yates et

al. 2018), mostly ichthyophagous predator with a

high trophic level (Troccoli et al. 2020), which

can reach more than 2 m total length (TL) and

more than 100 kg weight (Nevinski and Kozlov

2002). It is widespread in the Atlantic, Pacific and

Indian oceans, as well as in the northern region of

the Antarctic Convergence (Fischer and Hureau

1985). Its distribution in the South Atlantic Ocean

is influenced by the Malvinas Current and

extends from 60° S to 37° S on the Argentine

slope and shelf (Otero et al. 1982; Inada 1986).

Highest concentrations of the species are found

between the Burdwood Bank and De los Estados

Island, to the south and northeast of the Malvinas

Islands, and on the slope of Buenos Aires

province (Prenski and Almeyda 2000; Martínez et

al. 2001). This species exhibits a differential size

distribution based on depth (Cotrina 1981; Cassia

and Perrotta 1996; Prenski and Almeyda 2000),

with largest specimens inhabiting up to 2,500 m

(submarine canyons) and juveniles distributed

within the water column up to 600 m (Cotrina

1981). Duhamel (1991) and Agnew et al. (1999)

reported the same behavior for the species in the

Kerguelen region and South Georgia Islands,

respectively.

Patagonian toothfish fisheries in the Argentine

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) began at the

early 1990s and gained prominence due to the

rapid expansion mainly of trawler and longliner

fleets, while a few vessels also used pots for a

brief period. A set of management measures in

accordance with the biological characteristics of

the species were implemented in 2002 to prevent

juvenile overfishing and ensure adequate recruit-

ment for rational resource management. In addi-

tion to the establishment of the Commission for

the Monitoring of Patagonian Toothfish Fishing

Activity and the Subcommittee for Bycatch Con-

trol, the obligation to carry onboard observers

proved to be crucial elements for management.

As a result, the fishery is in a state of full

exploitation tending to the sustainability of the

resource and its fishery (Di Marco et al. 2019,

2020). Since 2021, the Argentine fishery has been

engaged in an Improvement Program (PROME)

that establishes short, medium and long-term

objectives guided by recognized standards of the

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).

From the beginning of the fishery to the pres-

ent, the predominance of one type of fishing gear

over another has changed particularly in response

to regulations and economic strategies of compa-

nies. Operating characteristics of the trawl and

longline fisheries have determined areas of oper-

ation for each fleet type, with the longliner fleet

having a much more extensive area of operation

due to its ability to fish even on bottoms not suit-

able for trawling.

The Yaganes (Y) and Namuncurá-Burdwood

Bank II (NBBII) MPAs were established in 2018.

268 MARINE AND FISHERY SCIENCES 36 (3): 267-288 (2023)

Their establishment within the usual Patagonian

toothfish fishing grounds will undoubtedly have

an impact on the distribution of effort that must

be taken into consideration, as well as the poten-

tial beneficial effects for the species and other

conservation objectives. This paper examined

potential effects of the establishment of the afore-

mentioned marine areas on catches made by all

fishing gear targeting this species between 2010

and 2020.

Brief review of Namuncurá-Burdwood Bank

and Yaganes marine protected areas

The Namuncurá-Burdwood Bank I (NBBI-

MPA) was the first MPA established in the south-

ern zone created by National Act Nº 26875 in

2013 covering a total area of 28,000 km2. This

NBBI-MPA was later included into the frame-

work of the National Act Nº 27037 by Decree Nº

888/2019, which established the MPAs’ National

System. The Burdwood Bank is a submarine

plateau in the southwestern Atlantic located

150 km to the east of De los Estados Island and

200 km south of Malvinas Islands. Its steep edges

produce vertical water movements bringing deep,

nutrient-rich waters to the sea surface favoring

primary production. It is a shallow area whose

upper portion is not visited by either of the two

toothfish fleets. It consists of the management

categories National Marine Park and National

Marine Reserve (Figure 1).

The National Act Nº 27490 was passed on

December 2018 to establish two new southern

269

MARTÍNEZ ET AL.: EFFECT OF MPAS ON THE CATCHES OF DISSOSTICHUS ELEGINOIDES

Figure 1. Namuncurá-Burdwood Bank marine protected area. The management categories are indicated. NMR: National Marine

Reserve. SNMR: Strict National Marine Reserve. NMP: National Marine Park. 1: outer limit of the Argentine territorial

sea. 2: outer limit of the Argentine Exclusive Economic Zone. Modified from https://www.argentina.gob.ar/parques

nacionales/areasmarinas/namuncura-burdwood.

MPAs: Namuncurá-Burdwood Bank II (NBBII-

MPA), which was added to the existing one, and

Yaganes (Y-MPA) (Figures 1 and 2). The

32,336.3 km2NBBII-MPA consist of the manage-

ment categories Strict National Marine Reserve

(SNMR) and National Marine Reserve (NMR).

The NMR category, located at the western end of

the MPA, constitutes approximately one quarter

of the total area. In contrast to the SNMR, which

ban any productive activity, this category allows

for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems. The

Namuncurá-Burdwood Bank Marine Protected

Area (NBB-MPA) is currently managed as a sin-

gle conservation unit that encompasses the ocean-

ic spaces of NBBI-MPA and NBBII-MPA; how-

ever, for the purposes of this document, reference

will be made only to the NBBII-MPA, since it is

the only one that reports depths greater than 800

m necessary for directed fishing of the species. A

management plan that ensures the achievement of

MPA objectives must be used to carry out the sus-

tainable exploitation of fisheries, wildlife,

tourism, and recreation altogether.

The first workshop of the NBB-MPA manage-

ment plan was held in October 2019 with the par-

ticipation of members from governmental and

non-governmental organizations, as well as from

private sectors of the civil society with interests

in these MPAs. In it, the objective of ‘conserving,

investigating and monitoring the animal forest,

the spawning and nursery areas of fish and popu-

lations of key species of food webs, the areas of

270 MARINE AND FISHERY SCIENCES 36 (3): 267-288 (2023)

Figure 2. Yaganes marine protected area. The management categories are indicated. NMR: National Marine Reserve. SNMR:

Strict National Marine Reserve. NMP: National Marine Park. 1: international limit. 2: outer limit of the Argentine terri-

torial sea. 3: outer limit of the Argentine Exclusive Economic Zone. Modified from https://www.argentina.gob.ar/

parquesnacionales/areasmarinas/yaganes.

use of top predators and the retention and

upwelling processes of nutrients of the NBB-

MPA’ was drafted considering the following

premises:

- Generation of knowledge through scientific

research focused on the management and use

of the MPA.

- Implementation of a monitoring program

based on indicators and focused on all conser-

vation objectives (CO).

- Prevention and mitigation of threats to COs.

- Sustainable use of fishing resources and con-

servation.

- Integrated administration of the management

plan with different actors, particularly in the

area of multiple uses.

- Application of adaptive management for the

implementation, monitoring and improvement

of the management plan.

- Inform society of the existence and importance

of the MPAs.

The management plan for the NBB-MPA was

finished in 2022 (APN 2022). This is the most

important tool for strategic planning containing

the necessary guidelines for the administration of

the area, as well as for its monitoring and evalua-

tion of progress. Several workshops with profes-

sionals and technicians from different institutions

were held during the preparation stage to identify

conservation objectives and management priori-

ties. However, as of the time of preparing this

document, a fisheries management plan neces-

sary to enable fishing exploitation in the NMR

has not yet been established.

Management categories of SNMR, National

Marine Park (NMP), and NMR comprise the

Yaganes MPA. As previously mentioned, MPAs

are entirely within the Argentine EEZ and covers

68,834.31 km2(Figure 2). Seabed of the entire

Yaganes MPA is under the category of SNMR,

providing the highest degree of protection. How-

ever, within the framework of a management

plan, the water column has been assigned the

management category of NMR in two sectors.

In another much broader sector, the water col-

umn is under the management category NMP in

order to guarantee controlled scientific, educa-

tional and recreational uses, admitting tourism as

the only economic activity. Until now, the man-

agement plan for Yaganes have not been

approved for any of the management categories

established in the foundation act. The 129,170

km2surface area of the described MPAs is in or

very close to important Patagonian toothfish fish-

ing grounds for the Argentine fleet. The NBBII-

MPA NMR covers 7,639 km2(approximately 6%

of MPAs’ bottoms) and was not historically a

fishing area for the species. Depending on what is

specified in the corresponding management plan,

it is the only one that could engage in productive

activities like bottom trawling for toothfish.

Additionally, fishing in the water column will be

allowed in the two NMR (20,643 km2) of both

NBB-MPA and Y-MPA, but it will be restricted to

16% of the entire area designated for southern

MPAs of the Argentine EEZ. The Argentine

toothfish fishery will undoubtedly be impacted by

this restriction on productive activities, in this

case trawl and longline fishing.

The Argentine Patagonian toothfish fishery:

strategies and management measures applied

The Patagonian toothfish fishing gained promi-

nence in Argentina at the beginning of the 1990s

and quickly experienced significant growth due to

the high commercial value of the species on inter-

national markets. In the early 2000s, catches from

both trawl and longline fisheries consisted almost

entirely of juveniles <82 cm TL. As a conse-

quence, INIDEP recommended taking precautions

with the species’ exploitation in particular due to a

general trend in the fishery caused by the species’

biological characteristics, such as its longevity,

slow growth, large size, and age at first sexual

maturity, which make the species easily suscepti-

271

MARTÍNEZ ET AL.: EFFECT OF MPAS ON THE CATCHES OF DISSOSTICHUS ELEGINOIDES

ble to overfishing (Prenski and Almeyda 1997,

2000; Prenski 2000; Wöhler et al. 2001; Wöhler

and Martínez 2002). In view of this, the Enforce-

ment Authority implemented a series of resolu-

tions between 2001 and 2002, including manage-

ment elements covering different aspects of the

fishery to avoid excessive capture of juvenile

Patagonian toothfish, such as limits on the depth

of the set, percentage of allowed juveniles per set,

and hooks size, among others.

Resolution Nº 19/2002 from the Secretaría de

Agricultura Ganadería y Pesca (SAGPyA) proved

to be one of the most significant for fishery man-

agement, particularly in relation to the establish-

ment of a Juvenile Patagonian Toothfish Protec-

tion Area (JPTPA) in geographic squares 5461,

5462 and 5463. The establishment of an Advisory

Commission for monitoring the Patagonian tooth-

fish fishing activity, comprising representatives of

the business sector, scientists and the Enforcement

Authority (Subsecretaría de Pesca y Acuicultura

SSPyA), together with the creation of the Sub-

committee for the control of mixed landing made

up of representatives of the business sector and the

Enforcement Authority, were significant advances.

Although both commissions aim to make it easier

to control and monitor the resource, the first com-

mission also advises on the development of the

toothfish fishery and proposes new regulations or

changes to existing ones to make the management

plan for that fishery more efficient.

Resolution Nº 19/2002 also included addition-

al measures for the management of the fishery.

Among the most significant were the mandatory

presence of an observer and inspector onboard of

vessels targeting Patagonian toothfish, as well as

the establishment of a limit of 15% for the pro-

portion of juveniles allowed in sets specifically

directed towards the species (equivalent to more

than 3% of the total catch). The fishery manage-

ment clearly evolved into adaptive management

in light of the current regulatory environment.

The evolution of the estimated percentage of

juveniles was monitored on a quarterly basis

based on the information collected by onboard

observers on each fishing trip. Subsequently, the

Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) regime for

the fishery was established by Resolution Nº

9/2007 of the Consejo Federal Pesquero (CFP)

and Provision Nº 75/2010 of the National Fishery

Control Agency (DNCP). Both acts helped effec-

tively control catches and provided ship owners

with greater predictability and transparency in

their administration.

Due to the concentration of effort in the

JPTPA, and the fact that the species reproduces in

part of it, a reproductive ban has recently been

implemented to safeguard the adult population

during the main spawning season occurring dur-

ing July, August, and September every year.

Additionally, the percentage of juveniles permit-

ted has been increased to 20% by CFP Resolution

Nº 12/2019.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Information was collected during the 2010-

2020 period by observers from the Instituto

Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero

(INIDEP, Argentina) onboard of vessels with ITQ

fishing for toothfish. Data included position, total

catch and toothfish catch of each set per trip.

Additionally, Patagonian toothfish were exam-

ined in both the Argentine EEZ and in established

MPAs.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 31,834 sets corresponding to 308

fishing trips (231 trawlers and 77 longliners)

were analyzed, reporting a catch of 32,063 t of

Patagonian toothfish, which represented 82% of

the 39,144 t total catches declared during that

period (Tables 1 and 2).

272 MARINE AND FISHERY SCIENCES 36 (3): 267-288 (2023)

Fishing fleet activities with ITQ of the species

in the Argentine EEZ between 2010-2020

Bottom trawl vessels

Operations of freezer fleet were restricted to the

area south of 48° S because of a management

measure to reduce the fishing effort for common

hake (Merluccius hubbsi) established in 1999.

Such displacement played a role in the fleet’s

decision to begin pursuing for Patagonian tooth-

fish as a potential source of diversification due to

its high commercial value. At the top of the fish-

ery’s expansion, around fifty vessels, including

trawlers and longliners, reported catching Patag-

onian toothfish at the beginning of the 2000s.

However, this number gradually decreased in

early 2003 because of both the restrictive manage-

ment strategy of fishing authorities and logistical

reasons specific to each company, such as other

nearby fisheries (Wöhler and Martínez 2017).

Over the last 10 years, the trawler fleet with

ITQ for toothfish consisted of seven vessels

(Troccoli and Martínez 2021), with five of them

currently active (Table 1). Depending on the vol-

ume of catches, freezer vessels operating in the

southernmost fishery in the Argentine EEZ pri-

marily targeted hoki (Macruronus magellanicus).

These vessels are typically large and possess sig-

nificant operational capability to operate in that

part of the Argentine EEZ. The main area of oper-

ation of this fleet is between 150-350 m deep;

however, when directing their effort to toothfish

they trawl at more than 800 m depths, since it is

the minimum depth allowed for the capture of

Patagonian toothfish.

Trawlers use different bottom gears depending

on the target species to which they direct their

effort. Most of the nets have a device called ‘rock

hopper’ attached to the footrope. This device con-

sists of 50 cm diameter steel balls joined by a 22

mm steel cable and protected by 60 cm diameter

rubber discs. It causes the gear to roll and the net

to jump on the bottom, preventing snags and

allowing to fish on irregular bottoms.

When looking at all of the trawls that were

recorded during this time period (29,045 hauls),

273

MARTÍNEZ ET AL.: EFFECT OF MPAS ON THE CATCHES OF DISSOSTICHUS ELEGINOIDES

Table 1. Bottom trawlers with Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) fishing for toothfish and number of fishing trips with

observers onboard from the 2010 to 2020 period.

Vessel/year ‘Argenova ‘Centurión ‘Echizen ‘Esperanza ‘San ‘Tai An’ ‘Viento Total

XXII’ del Atlántico’ Maru’ del Sur’ Arawa II’ del Sur’

2010 - 7 6 3 6 5 5 32

2011 - 3 3 2 6 5 4 23

2012 1 4 4 - 8 5 - 22

2013 3 - 6 - 5 8 - 22

2014 1 4 5 - 7 7 - 24

2015 - 4 4 - 8 6 - 22

2016 - 3 4 - 2 7 - 16

2017 3 5 2 - 6 3 - 19

2018 4 3 5 - 6 4 - 22

2019 4 4 1 - 6 2 - 17

2020 2 3 4 - 3 - - 12

Total 18 40 44 5 63 52 9 231

we found that their durations ranged from less

than 1 h to more than 10 h, with an average of 2

and 3 h. However, 38% of the species caught in

the analyzed years came from sets that lasted less

than 1 h, averaging 30 min (Table 3), a value that

rises to 82% when considering trawls of less than

2 h. This shows that when targeting toothfish the

duration of trawls decreases significantly com-

pared to those when the vessel targets other

species that constitute the southern fishery.

The area of operation of the toothfish trawling

fleet holding ITQ fishing for southern species is

located in high latitudes south of 50° S (Figure 3).

The main fishing ground of this fleet fishing for

Patagonian toothfish is located to the east of De

los Estados Island. It is made up of three statisti-

cal grids: 5461, 5462 and 5463, all of which com-

prise the JPTPA. This area reports 97% of catches

from the last ten years with respect to the total

catches obtained by trawlers in that period (Table

4; Figure 4).

Bottom longline vessels

According to Martínez et al. (2002), numerous

longline vessels targeting for toothfish joined the

fishery at the beginning of the 1990s, resulting in

the fleet’s largest catch (close to 19,000 t). Span-

ish-type manual and automatic longline-operat-

ing vessels have gradually withdrawn from the

274 MARINE AND FISHERY SCIENCES 36 (3): 267-288 (2023)

Table 3. Percentage of toothfish sets and catches of bottom

trawl based on strata established according to the

duration of fishing operations.

Duration (h) Sets (%) Catch (%)

Less than 1 10 38

1 to 2 17 44

2 to 3 18 10

3 to 4 18 4

4 to 5 17 2

5 to 6 10 0.70

6 to 7 5 0.40

7 to 8 2 0.10

8 to 9 1 0.09

9 to 10 0.60 0.01

More than 10 0.90 0.20

Table 2. Bottom longliners with Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) fishing for toothfish and number of fishing trips with

observers onboard from the 2010 to 2020 period.

Vessel/year ‘Antartic III’ ‘Argenova XXI’ ‘Argenova XIV’ Total

2010 4 4 3 11

2011 6 7 3 16

2012 3 5 6 14

2013 4 4 4 12

2014 - 4 5 9

2015 - 4 3 7

2016 - 1 4 5

2017 - - 1 1

2018 - - 1 1

2019 - - 1 1

2020 - - - -

Total 17 29 31 77

275

MARTÍNEZ ET AL.: EFFECT OF MPAS ON THE CATCHES OF DISSOSTICHUS ELEGINOIDES

Figure 3. Geographical distribution of the effort (fishing hauls) made by the trawling fleet that fishes for toothfish in a directed

manner, for each of the years of the period 2010-2020.

W68° 66° 64° 62° 60° 58° 56° 54° 52°

59°

57°

55°

53°

51°

S

Ushuaia

W68° 66° 64° 62° 60° 58° 56° 54° 52°

59°

57°

55°

53°

51°

S

W68° 66° 64° 62° 60° 58° 56° 54° 52°

59°

57°

55°

53°

51°

S

W68° 66° 64° 62° 60° 58° 56° 54° 52°

59°

57°

55°

53°

51°

S

W68° 66° 64° 62° 60° 58° 56° 54° 52°

59°

57°

55°

53°

51°

S

W68° 66° 64° 62° 60° 58° 56° 54° 52°

59°

57°

55°

53°

51°

S

W68° 66° 64° 62° 60° 58° 56° 54° 52°

59°

57°

55°

53°

51°

S

W68° 66° 64° 62° 60° 58° 56° 54° 52°

59°

57°

55°

53°

51°

S

Ushuaia

Ushuaia Ushuaia

2012 2013

2010 2011

2014 2015

2016 2017

276 MARINE AND FISHERY SCIENCES 36 (3): 267-288 (2023)

Figure 3. Continued.

Table 4. Patagonian toothfish catches (t) reported by scientific observers onboard trawlers in each Juvenile Patagonian Toothfish

Protection Area (JPTPA) grid (squares 5461, 5462 and 5463) and the rest of the fleet operation area from 2010 to 2020.

Year/area 5461 5462 5463 Rest Total

2010 0 22 879 33 934

2011 210 46 716 63 1,035

2012 506 260 821 39 1,626

2013 467 204 1,105 3 1,779

2014 684 634 2,035 7 3,360

2015 426 128 2,138 28 2,720

2016 304 269 1,670 56 2,299

2017 545 425 1,857 238 3,065

2018 1,220 360 2,173 60 3,813

2019 615 686 2,075 100 3,476

2020 190 1,484 867 14 2,555

Total 5,168 4,517 16,337 641 26,663

Percentage 19 17 61 3 100

W68° 66° 64° 62° 60° 58° 56° 54° 52°

59°

57°

55°

53°

51°

S

W68° 66° 64° 62° 60° 58° 56° 54° 52°

59°

57°

55°

53°

51°

S

W68° 66° 64° 62° 60° 58° 56° 54° 52°

59°

57°

55°

53°

51°

S

2018

Ushuaia Ushuaia

Ushuaia

2019

2020

fishery since transferable quota regime was

established in 2010, with only the ‘Argenova

XIV’ still in operation (Table 2). This vessel uses

a manual longline with a main line of about 200

m long. Railings (12 m long), are attached to

their respective nylon branch lines (1.60 m long)

every 40 m apart. Each one of them has 2 bunch-

es of 5 hooks and a dead weight made of stone

bags weighing approximately 5 kg each used to

anchor the gear to the bottom.

A device called ‘umbrella system’, designed

to reduce interactions with marine mammals,

particularly sperm whales, was incorporated into

each branch line on some manual longliners

beginning as for 2008. It is a conical sleeve with

a 10-15 cm upper circle and a 70-74 cm lower

circle joined by a 200-300 mm mesh size (Fig-

ure 5). When the line is tacked, the mesh moves

and covers the six manually ingrown hooks that

are located at the end of the branch line. In this

way, the net is used to cover hooks during the

process of hoisting the fishing gear onboard,

serving to protect the toothfish from potential

attacks of marine mammals. Additionally, heav-

ier umbrella-equipped longlines sink faster pre-

venting accidental bird capture. In certain hauls,

depending on the depth or knowledge of the

area, longlines can carry umbrella system with

277

MARTÍNEZ ET AL.: EFFECT OF MPAS ON THE CATCHES OF DISSOSTICHUS ELEGINOIDES

W 68° 66° 64° 62° 60°

S

55°

57°

Ushuaia

Figure 4. Geographic distribution of the effort (fishing sets) made by the trawling and longline fleets with Individual

Transferable Quota (ITQ) of toothfish, in the Juvenile Patagonian Toothfish Protection Area (JPTPA) grid (squares 5461,

5462 and 5463) during the period 2010-2020.

15 m

Æ~10-15 cm

~100-120 cm

Æ~70-74 cm

~30 cm

~15 cm

Æ~2-3 cm

~25 cm

~20 cm

Snoods

Hooks

4-8 kg

Weight

‘ mbrella system’U

Branch line

Main line

Figure 5. Detail of the device called ‘umbrella system’ used

by the longline fleet (extracted from Moreno et al.

2008).

the railing in between or do without them and

the heavier dead. The number of umbrellas by

longline ranges from 250 to 300. The use of this

device proved to be effective not only in reduc-

ing catch loss caused by marine mammal

attacks, but also in increasing the efficiency of

the gear by fishing as a bunch of hooks rather

than an individual hook. Hooks are circular ‘J’

types, 6 cm long, 4 cm wide, manually incarnat-

ed typically with frozen squid discs as bait. His-

torically, the longline fleet’s operation area in

the Argentine EEZ was divided into two zones

on the edge of the continental slope, 1,000 m

apart, one to the north of 45° S and the other to

the south of 54° S (Figure 6).

Although it is not the primary fishing ground

for this species, the longline fleet has also made

significant catches to the east of De los Estados

Island. This fleet was conditioned to operate in

productive areas where trawling was not possi-

ble by the type of bottom, avoiding a negative

interaction with the trawling fleet. The bottom

longline is an appropriate fishing gear for oper-

ating in areas of great difficulty for bottom

trawling vessels because of its characteristics,

including greater depths that can be reached with

the longline, such as those found along the slope

between 37° S and 47° S. Between 2010 and

2014, catches of bottom longliners operating in

the three JPTPA grids reached approximately

50% of the total obtained using said fishing gear

(Table 5). Due to changes in the composition of

the fleet, all of the fish caught in 2014 came from

grids outside the JPTPA, mostly south of 55° S

and in areas that now incorporate the Y-MPA and

NBB-MPA.

Potter vessels

The toothfish fishing industry made brief use

of pots primarily between 2007 and 2008. At that

time, Spanish-style longline companies went on

several fishing trips with pots. Main areas of

operation were at the east of De los Estados

Island, deep waters of the slope between 41° S

and 47° S, and south of Burdwood Bank. Only

two trips with this kind of gear and one signifi-

cant catch were recorded in 2011. Unfortunately,

neither of those trips had an onboard observer

from INIDEP. In order to collect information of

the fishing area of this fleet, fishing trips carried

out between 2007 and 2008 were used (Figure 7)

(Martínez and Wöhler 2008, 2009).

278 MARINE AND FISHERY SCIENCES 36 (3): 267-288 (2023)

Figure 6. Geographical distribution of the effort (fishing sets) made by the longline fleet that catches toothfish in a directed man-

ner, for each of the years of the period 2010-2020.

2011

W68° 66° 64° 62° 60° 58° 56° 54° 52°

59°

57°

55°

53°

51°

S

49°

47°

45°

43°

41°

39°

37°

Mar del Plata

Quequén

Puerto Madryn

Ushuaia

2010

W68° 66° 64° 62° 60° 58° 56° 54° 52°

59°

57°

55°

53°

51°

S

49°

47°

45°

43°

41°

39°

37°

Mar del Plata

Quequén

Puerto Madryn

Ushuaia

W68° 66° 64° 62° 60° 58° 56° 54° 52°

59°

57°

55°

53°

51°

S

49°

47°

45°

43°

41°

39°

37°

Mar del Plata

Quequén

Puerto Madryn

Ushuaia

2012

279

MARTÍNEZ ET AL.: EFFECT OF MPAS ON THE CATCHES OF DISSOSTICHUS ELEGINOIDES

Figure 6. Continued.

2020

W68° 66° 64° 62° 60° 58° 56° 54° 52°

59°

57°

55°

53°

51°

S

49°

47°

45°

43°

41°

39°

37°

Mar del Plata

Quequén

Puerto Madryn

Ushuaia

2019

W68° 66° 64° 62° 60° 58° 56° 54° 52°

59°

57°

55°

53°

51°

S

49°

47°

45°

43°

41°

39°

37°

Mar del Plata

Quequén

Puerto Madryn

Ushuaia

2014

W68° 66° 64° 62° 60° 58° 56° 54° 52°

59°

57°

55°

53°

51°

S

49°

47°

45°

43°

41°

39°

37°

Mar del Plata

Quequén

Puerto Madryn

Ushuaia

2013

W68° 66° 64° 62° 60° 58° 56° 54° 52°

59°

57°

55°

53°

51°

S

49°

47°

45°

43°

41°

39°

37°

Mar del Plata

Quequén

Puerto Madryn

Ushuaia

W68° 66° 64° 62° 60° 58° 56° 54° 52°

59°

57°

55°

53°

51°

S

49°

47°

45°

43°

41°

39°

37°

Mar del Plata

Quequén

Puerto Madryn

Ushuaia

2017

W68° 66° 64° 62° 60° 58° 56° 54° 52°

59°

57°

55°

53°

51°

S

49°

47°

45°

43°

41°

39°

37°

Mar del Plata

Quequén

Puerto Madryn

Ushuaia

2016

2015

W68° 66° 64° 62° 60° 58° 56° 54° 52°

59°

57°

55°

53°

51°

S

49°

47°

45°

43°

41°

39°

37°

Mar del Plata

Quequén

Puerto Madryn

Ushuaia

2018

W68° 66° 64° 62° 60° 58° 56° 54° 52°

59°

57°

55°

53°

51°

S

49°

47°

45°

43°

41°

39°

37°

Mar del Plata

Quequén

Puerto Madryn

Ushuaia

Observed and potential impacts of MPAs on

toothfish catches in the southwestern Atlantic

Historical toothfish catches from areas that were

later established as NBB-MPA and Y-MPA

Catches of Patagonian toothfish from NBB-

MPA and Y-MPA during the 2010-2020 period

were obtained only from bottom longlines. No

catches from trawlers were registered (Table 6).

As a result, the MPAs appear to have had no

effect on the toothfish fishery, at least from the

perspective of catches alone. It should be remem-

bered that, due to the absence of management

plans that would allow fishing in the MPAs, fish-

ing is banned since the end of 2018 in both MPAs.

As previously stated, catches gathered by this

kind of fleet were decreasing because of the grad-

ual removal of longline vessels from the fishery

and the transfer of quota to trawlers. This was

reflected in catches from MPAs established in

2018, even reaching zero in 2019 as a result of the

ban on fishing in that sector. The percentage of

catch obtained by longliners in both MPAs with

respect to the annual total caught in the years ana-

lyzed fluctuated between 14% and 65%, with a

mean value of 33% for the entire period, with

respect to the total obtained with bottom longline

during 2010-2020 (Table 6).

Depending on catch locations in the MPAs,

three sectors in which bottom longline fishing

activities have been concentrated can be identi-

fied (Table 7; Figure 8). Sector 1 in the NBB-

MPA, located in the SNMR, which since Decem-

ber 2018 does not allow the commercial exploita-

tion of natural resources nor will it in the future.

Sectors 2 and 3 correspond to the Y-MPA and are

classified as SNMR in terms of the bed and sub-

soil and as a NMR in terms of the water column

(Figure 8). Therefore, considering the historical

areas of operation of the longline fleet since the

establishment of management plans in the three

MPAs, toothfish operations with bottom longlines

could only be carried out in Sectors 2 and 3, if

such plans consider it. In the case of the NBB-

280 MARINE AND FISHERY SCIENCES 36 (3): 267-288 (2023)

Table 5. Patagonian toothfish catches (t) reported by scientific observers onboard longliners in each Juvenile Patagonian Toothfish

Protection Area (JPTPA) grid (squares 5461, 5462 and 5463) and the rest of the fleet operation area from 2010 to 2020.

Year/area 5461 5462 5463 Rest Total

2010 80 129 661 1,019 1,890

2011 119 321 497 981 1,918

2012 199 181 334 854 1,568

2013 106 84 739 664 1,593

2014 4 2 12 633 650

2015 - 1 1 712 714

2016 - - - 303 303

2017 - - - 98 99

2018 - - - 55 55

2019 - - - 82 82

2020 - - - - -

Total 508 718 2,246 5,401 8,872

Percentage 6 8 25 61 100

MPA, there has been virtually no activity of

toothfish trawlers and longliners in the last ten

years in the geographical location of the NMR,

where fishing activities are allowed. Even though

the longline fleet only visited Sector 3 until 2016,

it was responsible for more than half (58%) of all

recorded catches during that time, while Sectors 1

and 2 were responsible for 25% and 17%, respec-

tively (Table 7). However, Sector 1 reported

catches between 31% and 57% of the total com-

ing from the MPAs during the period 2011-2014,

and between 9% and 17% if total catches from

toothfish longline in the same years were consid-

ered. Consequently, it should also be considered

as a relevant sector for the toothfish fishery.

It is reasonable to anticipate that the establish-

ment of southern MPAs in Argentina will have a

significant impact on the toothfish fishery in rela-

tion to what has been described. Even though

trawling accounts for almost all of the species

caught today, this was not always the case, and

there is no guarantee that longline fishing will not

increase in the future. Despite the fact that the

establishment of the NBB-MPA and Y-MPA had

very little effect on catches, this could change sig-

nificantly if fishing methods were changed.

When analyzing the impact of the establish-

ment of the southern MPAs on the Patagonian

toothfish fishery in the Argentine EEZ, it should

be considered not only the catches but also the

direct effect that completely closed areas for fish-

ing exploitation have on the toothfish population.

The ‘spillover effect’, which has been frequent-

ly mentioned and utilized by a number of authors

in support of the establishment of MPAs as sup-

281

MARTÍNEZ ET AL.: EFFECT OF MPAS ON THE CATCHES OF DISSOSTICHUS ELEGINOIDES

Table 6. Total Patagonian toothfish catch reported by longlin-

ers from the total operation area and from

Namuncurá-Burwood Bank and Yaganes MPAs,

from 2010 to 2020.

Year Total catch Catch from Catch from

(t) MPAs (t) MPAs

(% total catch)

2010 1,890 882 46.7

2011 1,918 545 28.4

2012 1,568 461 29.4

2013 1,593 357 22.4

2014 650 200 30.8

2015 713 294 41.2

2016 303 85 28.1

2017 99 65 65.7

2018 55 8 14.5

2019 - - -

2020 - - -

Total 8,789 2,897 33.0

Figure 7. Geographical distribution of the effort (fishing

hauls) made by the fleet that caught toothfish

through the use of traps (pots) during the years 2007

and 2008.

W68° 66° 64° 62° 60°

S

55°

57°

58° 56° 54° 52°

59°

49°

43°

37°

51°

45°

39°

53°

47°

41°

Mar del Plata

Quequén

Puerto Madryn

Ushuaia

posedly favor the increase in fish abundance and

size, is another positive impact that could be gen-

erated on the toothfish stock. According to

Hilborn et al. (2004), the yield obtained in nearby

areas opened to fishing may rise in two ways.

Firstly, because of an increase in the size of the

fish that would be caught outside the MPA’s

boundaries. Secondly, as a result of an increase in

the supply of eggs and larvae that would con-

tribute to a growing biomass of spawners as a

result of an increase in the fecundity of the fish by

the increase in their size. Regarding the latter, the

reproduction of the species in Sector 1 of the

NBB-MPA occurs in winter months (Pájaro et al.

2005, 2009), and together with the area located

east of NBBII-MPA, it constitutes the main repro-

ductive area of the toothfish in the Argentine

EEZ. On the other hand, a few authors (Halpern et

282 MARINE AND FISHERY SCIENCES 36 (3): 267-288 (2023)

Figure 8. Location of the operating areas of the longline fleet in the period 2010-2020, differentiating between Sectors 1, 2 and

3 located in the Namuncurá-Burdwood Bank and the Yaganes MPAs.

Table 7. Total Patagonian toothfish catch (t) reported by longliners from Sectors 1, 2 and 3, during the 2010 to 2020 period.

Year Sector 1 Sector 2 Sector 3 Total

2010 45 120 717 882

2011 171 46 328 545

2012 181 53 227 461

2013 153 113 91 357

2014 114 25 61 200

2015 18 84 192 294

2016 2 30 53 85

2017 47 18 - 65

2018 8 - - 8

2019 - - - -

2020 - - - -

Total 739 489 1,669 2,897

W68° 66° 64° 62° 60°

S

55°

57°

58° 56° 54° 52°

59°

Ushuaia

al. 2004; Hiddink et al. 2006; Greenstreet et al.

2009; Hilborn 2018) have criticized the positive

effect of MPAs pointing out that those that pre-

vent fishing (MPAs categorized as ‘no take’) actu-

ally move legal fishing to surrounding areas dis-

placing fishing effort, and that there are few sys-

tematic studies in most areas allowing to evaluate

whether an increase in egg production within the

same area results in an increase in abundance out-

side of MPAs. An attempt to unravel this question

in the future through the implementation of an

exhaustive scientific research should be imple-

mented. This plan should include studies inside

and outside the MPAs in order to corroborate

whether the sector, now closed to commercial

exploitation due to the establishment of the NBB-

MPA, will generate an increase in the biomass of

the species outside those areas through the afore-

mentioned ‘spillover effect’. Based on tag-recap-

ture studies conducted in the area, the evidence

available indicates that, despite the fact that tooth-

fish movements seem to be quite limited, the

proximity of the MPA to the current trawlers and

longliners fishing ground would allow this effect,

since it is in the distance of detected movements

in the area (Martínez et al. 2014; Waessle and

Martínez 2018; Troccoli et al. 2022). In order to

reveal such an important aspect, it would be

advisable in the future to carry out intensive tag-

ging experiences within the MPA, mainly of juve-

nile specimens, as has been done up to now in the

program carried out by INIDEP.

In line with the above, Hilborn et al. (2004)

expressed the possibility that MPAs serve as a

useful tool for fisheries management, in addition

to promoting biodiversity conservation. Howev-

er, MPAs do not represent the total solution to the

sustainability problems of fisheries on their own.

Those authors also stated that a comprehension of

the spatial structure of affected fisheries, ecosys-

tems, and human communities is necessary for

the success of MPAs. The use of marine reserves

as well as other tools for managing fisheries can

assist in achieving overall goals related to fish-

eries and biodiversity, but it will require careful

planning and evaluation. If MPAs are implement-

ed without a detailed analysis of their particulari-

ties and proper monitoring programs, there is a

risk that expectations will not be met, disincen-

tives will be created, and the credibility of what is

potentially a valuable management tool will be

lost (Claudet et al. 2019; Teschke et al. 2021).

A large majority of MPAs lack rigorous studies

to evaluate their performance. Ojeda-Martínez et

al. (2011) examined protection effects of a num-

ber of marine areas and discovered flaws in both

objectives and evaluation process. The Before and

After Control Impact sampling designs were uti-

lized in very few instances. In the same vein, Gill

et al. (2017) concluded that there is a dearth of

useful research into whether in and under what

circumstances MPAs boost fish abundance in a

region. Similarly, no external effects are examined

in the extensive meta-analysis within reserves. A

clear explanation of what has been mentioned

could occur in Sector 1 of the MPA-NBB, which

has a considerable biomass of the resource, if the

percentages of the total catch that said sector con-

tributed in the past are taken into account. On the

other hand, the Diego Ramírez Islands-Drake Pas-

sage Marine Park established in Chilean waters in

2018, borders Y-MPA and provides additional

protection for the southern sea, which constitutes

the natural habitat for toothfish and whose effect

should also be analyzed (Figure 9).

CONCLUSIONS

Seventeen economic, social, and environmen-

tal goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development were approved by UN member

states, including Argentina, at the World Summit

on Sustainable Development in 2015. The com-

mitment to preserve at least 10% of the coastal

and marine zones is derived from this, and it is

based on the most up-to-date available scientific

283

MARTÍNEZ ET AL.: EFFECT OF MPAS ON THE CATCHES OF DISSOSTICHUS ELEGINOIDES

data. With the establishment of the NBB-MPA

and Y-MPA at the end of 2018, Argentina met

7.11% of what is required by the 2030 Agenda.

Currently, the effects resulting from the cre-

ation of MPAs can only be speculated upon qual-

itatively. However, there is a potential for these

effects to be quantified in the near future. Two

types of impact derived from the establishment of

the MPAs on the toothfish fishery were identified.

The first one, which is short-term and can be con-

sidered negative, is the limitation of captures by

the restriction to the operation of ships in areas

that historically represented important fishing

grounds of the species. Since the trawling fleet

typically does not catch toothfish in these areas,

this restriction would primarily apply to the long-

line fleet. This negative effect is insignificant for

the time being because longline fishing is much

less common in Argentina than it was in the past.

However, if this type of fish fleet returns to the

fishery, it could become very significant. In this

instance, authorizing sectors of Namuncurá-Bur-

dwood Bank I and II and Yaganes MPAs would

help spread out the effort to catch the species.

The ‘spillover effect’ is other impact over the

toothfish stock and would favor the increase in

fish abundance and size. Even though several

years have passed, there are no plans in place to

begin evaluating the ecological and fishing

impact of its implementation by monitoring the

evolution of the fishing resources or biodiversity.

MPAs are only a tool and not a panacea. Many

MPAs were created without clearly knowing what

the social, environmental and economic impact

284 MARINE AND FISHERY SCIENCES 36 (3): 267-288 (2023)

Figure 9. Geographical location of the Diego Ramírez Islands-Drake Passage Marine Park located in the Chilean EEZ and which

complements the protection of the oceanic sector of the American southern cone together with the Namuncurá-

Burdwood Bank and Yaganes MPAs, located in nearby areas, corresponding to the Argentine EEZ. Source: https://www.

nationalgeographic.org/projects/pristine-seas/expeditions/cape-horn.

will be. This lack of foresight can give rise to

political and economic problems compromising

the survival of MPAs.

INIDEP contribution no. 2301.

Author contributions

Patricia A. Martínez: conceptualization,

methodology, formal analysis, writing-original

draft, writing-review and editing. Otto C. Wöhler:

conceptualization, formal analysis, writing-

review and editing. Gonzalo H. Troccoli: concep-

tualization, writing-review and editing. Emiliano

J. Di Marco: writing-review and editing.

REFERENCES

AGNEW DJ, HEAPS L, JONES C, BERKIETA K,

PEARCE J. 1999. Depth distribution and

spawning pattern of Dissostichus eleginoides

at South Georgia. CCAMLR Sci. 6: 19-36.

[APN] ADMINISTRACIÓN DE PARQUES NACIONA-

LES. 2022. Plan de gestión Área Marina Prote-

gida Namuncurá Banco Burdwood. 2022.

Dirección Nacional de Areas Marinas Protegi-

das. 148 p. https://sib.gob.ar/archivos/Plan_

Gestion_AMP_Namuncura_Banco_Burwood_

2022.pdf.

CASSIA MC, PERROTTA RG. 1996. Distribución,

estructura de tallas, alimentación y pesca de la

merluza negra (Dissostichus eleginoides

Smith, 1898) en un sector del Atlántico Sud-

occidental. INIDEP Inf Téc Nº 17. 24 p.

CLAUDET J, BOPP L, CHEUNG WWL, DEVILLERS

R, ESCOBAR-BRIONES E, HAUGAN P, HEYMANS

JJ, MASSON-DELMOTTE V, MATZ-LUCK N,

MILOSLAVICH P, et al. 2020. A roadmap for

using the un decade of ocean science for sus-

tainable development in support of science,

policy, and action. One Earth. 2 (5): 437-449.

COLLINS MA, BRICKLE P, BROWN J, BELCHIER M.

2010. The Patagonian toothfish: biology, ecol-

ogy and fishery. In: MICHAEL L, editor.

Advances in marine biology. 58. Burlington:

Academic Press. p. 227-300.

COTRINA C. 1981. Distribución de tallas y repro-

ducción de las principales especies de peces

demersales capturados en las campañas de los

B/I “Walther Herwig” y “Shinkai Maru”

(1978-1979). Contrib Inst Nac Invest Desarr

Pesq (Mar del Plata). Nº 383: 80-103.

DIMARCO E, MARTÍNEZ PA, WÖHLER OC, TROC-

COLI G. 2020. Evaluación de la merluza negra

(Dissostichus eleginoides) en el Atlántico

Sudoccidental (período 1980-2019): estado de

explotación y abundancia con recomendación

de la Captura Biológicamente Aceptable para

el año 2021. Inf Téc Of INIDEP Nº 36/2020.

33 p.

DIMARCO EJ, WÖHLER OC, MARTÍNEZ PA, TROC-

COLI GH. 2021. Evaluación de la merluza

negra (Dissostichus eleginoides) del Atlántico

Sudoccidental (período 1980-2020) Captura

Biológicamente Aceptable año 2022. Inf Téc

Of Nº 42/2021. 39 p.

DUARTE CM, AGUSTI S, BARBIER E, BRITTEN GL,

CASTILLA JC, GATTUSO J-P, FULWEILER RW,

HUGHES TP, KNOWLTON N, LOVELOCK CE, et

al. 2020. Rebuilding marine life. Nature. 580:

39-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-0

20-2146-7

DUDLEY N, editor. 2008. Guidelines for applying

protected area management categories. Best

Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series. 21.

Gland: International Union for Conservation

of Nature (IUCN).

DUHAMEL G. 1991. Biology and harvesting of

Dissostichus eleginoides around Kerguelen

Islands (Division 58.5.1). CCAMLR WG-

FSA 91/7. 8 p.

FISCHER W, HUREAU JC, editors. 1985. FAO

Species identification sheets for fishery pur-

poses Southern Ocean: Fishing Areas 48, 58

and 88 (CCAMLR Convention Area). Vol. 2.

Rome: FAO. p. 233-470.

285

MARTÍNEZ ET AL.: EFFECT OF MPAS ON THE CATCHES OF DISSOSTICHUS ELEGINOIDES

GILL DA, MASCIA MB, AHMADIA GN, GLEW L,

LESTER SE, BARNES M, CRAIGIE I, DARLING

ES, FREE CM, GELDMANN J, et al. 2017.

Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of

marine protected areas globally. Nature. 543:

665-669.

GREENSTREET SPR, FRASER HM, PIET GJ. 2009.

Using MPAs to address regional-scale ecolog-

ical objectives in the North Sea: modelling the

effects of fishing effort displacement. ICES J

Mar Sci. 66: 90-100.

HALPERN BS, GAINES SD, WARNER RR. 2004.

Confounding effects of the export of produc-

tion and the displacement of fishing effort

from marine reserves. Ecol Appl. 14: 1248-

1256.

HIDDINK JG, HUTTON T, JENNINGS S, KAISER MJ.

2006. Predicting the effects of area closures

and fishing effort restrictions on the produc-

tion, biomass, and species richness of benthic

invertebrate communities. ICES J Mar Sci. 63:

822-830.

HILBORN R. 2018. Are MPAs effective? ICES J

Mar Sci. 75 (3): 1160-1162. DOI: https://doi.

org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx068

HILBORN R, STOKES K, MAGUIRE JJ, SMITH T,

BOTSFORD LW, MANGEL M, ORENSANZ J,

PARMA A, RICE J, BELL J. 2004. When can

marine reserves improve fisheries manage-

ment? Ocean Coast Manage. 47: 197-205.

[IUCN] INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVA-

TION OF NATURE. 2013. Marine Protected

Areas: a fundamental tool for long-term ocean

biodiversity protection and sustainable man-

agement. [accessed 2023 Apr]. IUCN. https://

www.iucn.org/.

LESTER SE, HALPERN BS, GRORUD-COLVERT K,

LUBCHENCO J, RUTTENBERG BI, GAINES SD,

AIRAMÉ S, WARNER RR. 2009. Biological

effects within no-take marine reserves: a glob-

al synthesis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 384: 33-46.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08029

MARÍ NB. 1999. Aspectos de la pesquería de mer-

luza negra (Dissostichus eleginoides) en el

período 1989-1997, en el área de operación de

la flota argentina. In: Avances en métodos y

tecnología aplicados a la investigación pes-

quera. Seminario Final del Proyecto INIDEP-

JICA sobre evaluación y monitoreo de recur-

sos pesqueros 1994-1999. Mar del Plata: Ins-

tituto Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo

Pesquero (INIDEP). 249 p.

MARTÍNEZ PA, GIUSSI AR, WÖHLER OC. 2001.

Área de operación de las flotas arrastrera y

palangrera que capturaron merluza negra (Dis-

sostichus eleginoides). Período 1990-2000.

Inf Téc Int DNI-INIDEP Nº 73/2001. 16 p.

MARTÍNEZ PA, TROCCOLI G, WÖHLER OC, DI

MARCO E. 2020. Síntesis de la evolución de la

pesquería de merluza negra (Dissostichus ele-

ginoides). Año 2019. Inf Téc INIDEP Nº

33/2020. 10 p.

MARTÍNEZ PA, WAESSLE JA, WÖHLER OC, GIUSSI

AR. 2014. Síntesis del Programa de Marcado

y Recaptura de Merluza Negra (Dissostichus

eleginoides) en el Atlántico Sudoccidental y

de los resultados obtenidos desde su imple-

mentación en el año 2004 hasta diciembre de

2013. Inf Invest INIDEP Nº 6/2014. 8 p.

MARTÍNEZ PA, WÖHLER OC. 2008. La pesquería

de merluza negra en el Atlántico Sudocciden-

tal. Enero-noviembre del 2007. Inf Téc

INIDEP Nº 4/2008. 9 p.

MARTÍNEZ PA, WÖHLER OC. 2009. La pesquería

de merluza negra (Dissostichus eleginoides)

en el Atlántico Sudoccidental durante el año

2008. Inf Téc INIDEP Nº 14/2009. 12 p.

MARTÍNEZ PA, WÖHLER OC. 2017. Hacia la recu-

peración de la pesquería de merluza negra

(Dissostichus eleginoides) en el Mar Argenti-

no: un ejemplo de trabajo conjunto entre el

sector de la administración, la investigación y

la industria. Frente Marít. 24: 113-124.

MARTÍNEZ PA, WÖHLER OC, VERAZAY GA. 2002.

Características de la pesca con palangre de

merluza negra (Dissostichus eleginoides) en el

Mar Argentino durante el período 1993-2001.

Inf Téc Int DNI-INIDEP Nº 54/2002. 11 p.

286 MARINE AND FISHERY SCIENCES 36 (3): 267-288 (2023)

MARTÍNEZ PA, WÖHLER OC, TROCCOLI G, DI

MARCO E. 2019. Sugerencia de establecimien-

to de una veda estacional y medidas adiciona-

les para resguardar a la fracción adulta y el

proceso reproductivo de merluza negra (Dis-

sostichus eleginoides) en el área de protección

de juveniles de la especie. Inf Téc INIDEP Nº

38/2019. 9 p.

MORENO CA, CASTRO R, MÚJICA LJ, REYES P.

2008. Significant conservation benefits

obtained from the use of a new fishing gear in

the Chilean Patagonian toothfish fishery.

CCAMLR Sci. 15: 79-91.

NEVINSKY MM, KOZLOV AN. 2002. The fecundity

of the Patagonian toothfish Dissostichus elegi-

noides around South Georgia Island (South

Atlantic). J Ichthyol. 42: 571-573.

OJEDA-MARTÍNEZ C, BAYLE-SEMPERE JT, SÁNCHEZ-

JEREZ P, SALAS F, STOBART B, GOÑI R, FALCÓN

JM, GRAZIANO M, GUALA I, HIGGINS R, et al.

2011. Review of the effects of protection in

marine protected areas: current knowledge

and gaps. Anim Biodivers Conserv. 34 (1):

191-203.

PÁJARO M, MACCHI GJ, MARTÍNEZ PA, WÖHLER

OC. 2005. Detección de un área de puesta de

merluza negra (Dissostichus eleginoides)

sobre la base del análisis histológico. Inf

Invest INIDEP Nº 87/2005. 8 p.

PÁJARO M, MACCHI GJ, MARTÍNEZ PA, WÖHLER

OC. 2009. Características reproductivas de

dos agregaciones de merluza negra (Dissosti-

chus eleginoides) del Atlántico Sudoccidental.

Inf Invest INIDEP Nº 49/2009. 16 p.

PRENSKI LB. 2000. Informe sobre el estado del

recurso merluza negra (Dissostichus eleginoi-

des) y su captura máxima. Inf Invest INIDEP

Nº 41/2000. 8 p.

PRENSKI LB, ALMEYDA SM. 1997. Informe final

sobre los arrastres a gran profundidad. Algunos

aspectos biológicos relevantes a la explotación

de la merluza negra (Dissostichus eleginoides

Smith, 1898) en la Zona Económica Exclusiva

Argentina y Sector Oceánico Adyacente. Inf

Téc Int DNI-INIDEP Nº 100/1997. 38 p.

PRENSKI LB, ALMEYDA SM. 2000. Some biologi-

cal aspects relevant to Patagonian toothfish

(Dissostichus eleginoides) exploitation in the

Argentine Exclusive Economic Zone and

Adjacent Ocean Sector. Frente Marít. 18 (A):

103-124.

SALA E, MAYORGA J, BRADLEY D, CABRAL RB,

ATWOOD TB, AUBER A, CHEUNG W, COSTELLO

C, FERRETTI F, FRIEDLANDER AM, et al. 2021.

Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity,

food and climate. Nature. 592: 1-6. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03371-z

SELKOE KA, BLENCKNER T, CALDWELL MR,

CROWDER LB, ERICKSON AL, ESSINGTON TE,

ESTES JA, FUJITA RM, HALPERN BS, HUNSICK-

ER ME, et al. 2015. Principles for managing

marine ecosystems prone to tipping points.

Ecosyst Health Sust. 1 (5): 17. DOI: http://doi.

org/10.1890/EHS14-0024.1

TESCHKE K, BRTNIK P, HAIN S, HERATA H, LIEB-

SCHNER A, PEHLKE H, BREY T. 2021. Planning

marine protected areas under the CCAMLR

regime-the case of the Weddell Sea (Antarcti-

ca). Mar Policy. 124: 104370. DOI: https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104370

TROCCOLI G, AGUILAR E, MARTÍNEZ PA, BELLEG-

GIA M. 2020. The diet of the Patagonian tooth-

fish Dissostichus eleginoides, a deep-sea top

predator off Southwest Atlantic Ocean. Polar

Biol. 43: 1595-1604.

TROCCOLI GH, MARTÍNEZ PA, DIMARCO E,

WAESSLE JA, WÖHLER OC. 2022. Análisis de

los patrones migratorios de la merluza negra

(Dissostichus eleginoides) en el Océano

Atlántico Sudoccidental a través del programa

de marcado y recaptura llevado a cabo a bordo

de la flota argentina. Inf Invest INIDEP Nº

26/2022. 24 p.

TROCCOLI G, MARTÍNEZ PA, DIMARCO E, WÖH-

LER OC. 2021. Síntesis de la pesquería argen-

tina de merluza negra (Dissostichus eleginoi-

des). Período 2000-2020. Inf. Téc. Of INIDEP

Nº 20/2021. 11 p.

287

MARTÍNEZ ET AL.: EFFECT OF MPAS ON THE CATCHES OF DISSOSTICHUS ELEGINOIDES

WAESSLE JA, MARTÍNEZ PA. 2018. Resultados del

Programa de Marcado de Merluza Negra (Dis-

sostichus eleginoides) en el Atlántico Sudoc-

cidental, 2004-2017. Inf Invest INIDEP Nº

85/2018. 20 p.

WÖHLER OC, MARTÍNEZ PA. 2002. La pesquería

de merluza negra (Dissostichus eleginoides)

en el período enero-septiembre de 2002:

aspectos preocupantes sobre su sustentabili-

dad en el largo plazo. Inf Invest INIDEP Nº

92/2002. 14 p.

WÖHLER OC, MARTÍNEZ PA, GIUSSI AR. 2001.

Características de la pesca por arrastre de mer-

luza negra (Dissostichus eleginoides) en el

Mar Argentino durante el año 2000 y recomen-

daciones tendientes a evitar la captura de juve-

niles. Inf Invest INIDEP Nº 72/2001. 22 p.

YATES P, ZIEGLER P, WELSFORD D, MCIVOR J,

FARMER B, WOODCOCK E. 2018. Spatio-tem-

poral dynamics in maturation and spawning of

Patagonian toothfish Dissostichus eleginoides

on the Sub-Antarctic Kerguelen Plateau. J

Fish Biol. 92: 34-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1

111/jfb.13479

288 MARINE AND FISHERY SCIENCES 36 (3): 267-288 (2023)