No confusion with WorldFish, formerly ICLARM and WorldFish Center.New: interface, twitter
To apply in Asia.
Maps from IUCN.
In a poster 10 yrs ago, RF and WNE estimated at 35,000.Some are already exploited, but we did not know they were different spp.
Importance of the catchment as a management unt.BioFresh.
Parameters for modelization. Effort to apply Bayesian statistics (iMarine)
Not incl. aquarium tradeOr do we go to only a few spp. like in cattle?
Stock mainly from Northern Atlantic
Fao db impr: – (e.g. decreasing the high level of data aggregation in certain countries);and through standardized taxonomical
covering specific disciplines,specific resources (wild, cultured or in-situ or ex-situ collections) or production methods; compilation ofcase studies. These should be designed to identify and collate primary literature and information from thefield to feed into information systems.and their sustainable use (e.g. indicators ofstatus of resources; area under culture; diversity levels; number of threatened stocks; proportion of fisheriesassessed at species level; the proportion of genetically improved stocks used in aquaculture; extent ofimproved production efficiency; number and/or proportion of AqGR protected).(e.g. inclusion of information on key stocks, strains, their production systems), the addition
(like it was done between 1995 and 2000 for fisheries at species rank)
No more untouched space to exploit anymore.
Fish biodiversity and food supply: Species numbers in the wild and exploited; Importance to document the aquatic genetic resources (stocks, populations, strains)
Fish biodiversity and food supply:
Species numbers in the wild and exploited;
Importance to document the aquatic genetic
resources (stocks, populations, strains)
AFBC 2014, Penang Malaysia
13 Feb. 2014
Nicolas BAILLY, Douglas BEARE, John A.H. BENZIE
For sustainable fish food supply
• Taxonomy is important for biodiversity
• Aquatic genetic resources are important to
document at global scale
• Fish species numbers
• Some notes: classification, subspecies
• Genetics to species: Taxonomy matters
• Species to genetics: Aquatic genetic resources matter
• Documenting Aquatic Genetic Resources:
an old unresolved issue
• Suggestions to move forward
• Conclusion: aquatic food supply
• FishBase (FB): www.fishbase.org 31 January 2014
• Catalog of Fishes (CofF) W.N. Eschmeyer
05 February 2014
FB drown by numbers (as of 31 January 2014)
species-group taxa; 99 species have 150 subspecies
[CofF February 2014: 33,065]
“synonyms” [86,771 names + 7,062 misappl.]
common names in 333 languages for 259 “countries”
country rec. for 295 “countries”
subcountry rec. for 171 “subcountries” for 6 “countries”
ecosystem records for 856 “ecosystems”
FAO area records for 27 areas
identification keys for 8,196 species
fish images for 18,099 species
bibliographic references [592,724 citation rec.]
(~3 million rec.; >200 tables, ~60 main)
CofF (as of 05 February 2014)
64 (28 suborders)
554 (272 subfamilies)
10,849 Total / 5,078 Valid
57,871 Avail./ 33,065 Valid
• Recent work on family-level authorship
For the most updated numbers
Refer to the page in CofF
Number of valid species by milieu
Brackish only: 95 (0.3%)
Number of species described per year
Number of species described per year (1982-2011)
One new fish
per day for the
last 15 years
9,654 described (322 / yr); 9,051 valid
603 already put in synonymy, 6.2% - comp 46% total
Cumulated number of species described per year
Note on the classification of bony fishes
• Betancur-R, R., E. Wiley, M. Miya, G. Lecointre, N.
Bailly, and G. Ortí. 2013.
New and Revised Classification of Bony Fishes Version 2
• Betancur-R., R., R.E. Broughton, E.O. Wiley, K.
Carpenter, J.A. Lopez, C. Li, N.I. Holcroft, D. Arcila, M.
Sanciangco, J. Cureton, F. Zhang, T. Buser, M.
Campbell, T. Rowley, J.A. Ballesteros, G. Lu, T. Grande, G.
Arratia & G. Ortí. 2013. The tree of life and a new
classification of bony fishes. PLoS Currents Tree of Life.
2013 Apr 18.
Note on subspecies in ichthyology
• No more subspecies in ichthyology … PLEASE
• Issues in matching name in GBIF, and IUCN
• Remains a number of subspecies in FishBase:
to be treated case by case
• Number of discrepancies between FB and
CofF are due to subspecies issues
Number of species per ocean and some seas
Number of species per FAO area
Barcode: some studies in progress
• Brazil: Potentially 3,7 times more spp.
identified through barcode than
morphologically recognized (Oliveira, FishBoL
• Kenya: 3 times more (Nyingi, Bart et coll.
TDWG Conf. 2013)
• France: Gobio sp. 1 4 spp.
(Kottelat, Doadrio et al.); Confirmed by
• West Africa: Hepsetus 1 sp. 4/5 spp.
separated by basins from Senegal to Gabon
Decru, Vreven et coll.)
• Estimation of number of spp.:
33,000 valid spp. today
(7,500 exploited, 22.5%)
3 times more potentially with Barcode
Should we expect 100,000 spp. in final ???
• Flaws in this estimation:
– “Potential” not confirmed yet;
– Only in freshwaters (but think about Mugil
cephalus that could be a complex 14 different spp.
around the world; Durand et coll.)
• If 100,000 spp.
22,500 species are potentially exploitable
(using the same current ratio 33,000 spp. with
• Some are already exploited,
but we did not know they were different spp.
or worse, we still don’t know
• Consequences for biodiversity management both
for exploitation and conservation
• 4,661 spp. used from subsistence to industrial
fisheries: 270 stocks with info in FB.
• Characterize populations/stocks (population
• Population/stocks are trans-boundary
• Analysis of global trends
(“Fishing down marine food
webs”) at species rank only
• Need for documentation in accessible
• 364 farmed spp.: 74 strain stocks in FB.
• Characterize strains
• Characterize populations/stocks (growth
parameters, disease resistance, environmental
plasticity) as genetic ressource
• GIFT tilapia: result of hybridization of wild
populations. Will it still possible in the future for
• The agriculture community has still to fully
recognize that genetic resources matters also for
aquatic environment (not only
cattle, plants, forest, bacteria)
Different goals between fresh and marine water
• In freshwater basins, interest will be in
characterizing species and populations for
• while in the sea the main focus will be on
characterizing population and stocks for
adapted catch fisheries management plans.
Genetics and climate change
• Which species are the winners?
Which ones the loosers?
• Requires a database at regional/global levels
to refine the prediction crudly based on
occurrences and environmental parameters
23 hotspots in Coral Triangle seas in 2010
29 hotspots in Coral Triangle seas in 2050
Adaptation to climate change
• Depends on genetics diversity
• For example, for respiration and digestion
systems that impact growth
• Use phylogeography linked to genetic diversity
• Requires databases linking traits and genes
• Extend the predictions only based on
occurrences and environmental parameters
A global database for Aquatic Genetic Resources
• CGFRA: Commission on Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture (FAO)
*SGRP, INGA, SINGER, …+
• Aquatic organisms barely recognized as
animals (or all gathered under “fish”)
• No global database like for cattle, crops, …
• Rejection by the commission of all projects
submitted for the past 20 years (last attempt
An old issue
• Pullin, R.S.V., D.M. Bartley and J.Kooiman, eds. 1999.
Towards policies for conservation and sustainable use of
aquatic genetic resources. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 59, 277pp.
• Bartley, D.M.; Harvey, B.J.; Pullin, R.S.V. eds. 2007.
Workshop on Status and Trends in Aquatic Genetic
Resources: a Basis for International Policy. 8–10 May
2006, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. FAO Fisheries
Proceedings. No. 5. Rome, FAO. 179p.
• Reviews in Aquaculture: Special Issue: Special Issue on
Use and Exchange of Genetic Resources of Cultured
Aquatic Organisms. Volume 1, Issue 3-4, Sep.–Dec. 2009
• Halwart M., Hett K., García Gómez R., eds. 2012.
Aquaculture Service (. Improving the Information Base
for Aquatic Genetic Resources for The State of the
World’s Aquatic Genetic Resources FAO International
Expert Workshop. Madrid, Spain, 1–4 March 2011.
Rome, 57 pp.
Preparing the Status of the World of the AqGR
• Strengthening national data compilation capacity
• Implement a correct framework for data sharing
– National and international standard procedures
– Training on standard operating procedures
– Improvement of FAO databases
– Improvement of AqGR resource identification at
– Improvement and linking to the ongoing efforts to
the FAO fisheries and aquaculture questionnaires
Preparing the Status of the World of the AqGR
• Provision of additional resources to key databases for AqGR
• Additional capacity building opportunities in data
handling, archiving, collation and dissemination.
• Compilation of scattered information on AqGR through expert
• Standardization of the collection of primary and secondary
• Development of key targets and indicators necessary to
determine the effectiveness of actions and to monitor
progress in tracking the state of the world’s AqGR
• Targeted introductions of changes to data collections to
industry sectors or countries of particular importance (e.g.
because of the volume of production or trade, the threatened
nature of the resource, or particular lack of information).
• Specific actions to collate information in areas for which
information in existing databases is inadequate.
• Data are scattered in many publications:
It requires a massive effort for data entry
• FishBase and SeaLifeBase are structured
to accommodate population/genetics
entries (See poster on FB data encoding
• Advocacy for AqGR to your national
delegate in FAO
• Start by regional scale in addition to
national like in Portugal
Exploitation and conservation must be balanced
for sustainable fish food supply.
Dedicated information systems such as FishBase
are fundamental for reaching this goal for the
Remains to link to socio-economics systems.
A key issue is education at all level of society.
Funded under the
Framework Programme 7
(Contract No. 283644)
for AquaMaps, and
for hotspots study
of the European
BioFresh for maintaing the
freshwater taxonomy in FB
(Contract No. 226874)
• BoLD, GenBank, IUCN, ZooBank, CoL, ITIS, Wo
RMS, FADA , IRMNG , GBIF, OBIS, BioFresh
• Importance to keep system separate with
• Difficulty to organise the synchronization
• Necessity for research on webservices