Oreos

Smooth Oreo (Pseudocyttus maculatus); Black Oreo (Allocyttus niger)

Sometimes known as Oreo Dory.

These species are wild-caught.

Summary

Smooth and Black Oreos are slow to mature and are extremely long-lived fishes, qualities which make them vulnerable to overfishing. Most reported catches occur in New Zealand, where they are in low levels of abundance in some areas. They aggregate around seamounts, and the bottom trawls used to fish for Oreos cause extensive damage to their benthic habitats.

Criterion	Points
Life History	0.50
Abundance	1.75
Habitat Quality and Fishing Gear Impacts	0.25
Management	1.75
Bycatch	2.00
Final Score (average of criteria)	1.25
Color

Final Score	Color
2.60 - 4.00
2.20 - 2.59
1.80 - 2.19
1.40 - 1.79
0.00 - 1.39

Last updated January 26, 2005.

Life History

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

If a value for intrinsic rate of increase (‘r’) is known, assign the score below based on this value. If no r-value is available, assign the score below for the correct age at 50% maturity for females if specified, or for the correct value of growth rate ('k'). If no estimates of r, age at 50% maturity, or k are available, assign the score below based on maximum age.

1.00	Intrinsic rate of increase <0.05; OR age at 50% maturity >10 years; OR growth rate <0.15; OR maximum age >30 years. No estimates for intrinsic rate of increase are available for Smooth and Black Oreos. Age at maturity is estimated to be 31 years old for Smooth Oreo females and 27 years old for Black Oreo females. Growth rate (k) is 0.06 for Smooth Oreos and 0.05 for Black Oreos. Maximum ages are 86 and 153 years old for Smooth and Black Oreos, respectively (Annala et al. 2004).
2.00	Intrinsic rate of increase = 0.05-0.15; OR age at 50% maturity = 5-10 years; OR a growth rate = 0.16–0.30; OR maximum age = 11-30 years.
3.00	Intrinsic rate of increase >0.16; OR age at 50% maturity = 1-5 years; OR growth rate >0.30; OR maximum age <11 years.

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)

-0.25	Species has special behaviors that make it especially vulnerable to fishing pressure (e.g., spawning aggregations; site fidelity; segregation by sex; migratory bottlenecks; unusual attraction to gear; etc.). Adult Black Oreos, in particular, aggregate around seamounts, making them easy to target by trawlers. Smooth Oreos also aggregate around seamounts but are more widely distributed on the seafloor (Lack et al. 2003).
-0.25	Species has a strategy for sexual development that makes it especially vulnerable to fishing pressure (e.g., age at 50% maturity >20 years; sequential hermaphrodites; extremely low fecundity). Both Smooth and Black Oreos mature late in life. Smooth Oreos mature at 31 years old, and Black Oreos mature at 27 years old (Annala et al. 2004).
-0.25	Species has a small or restricted range (e.g., endemism; numerous evolutionarily significant units; restricted to one coastline; e.g., American lobster; striped bass; endemic reef fishes). Smooth Oreos are relatively widespread in cool, temperate southern hemisphere waters. In the Southwest Atlantic, they are found from Suriname and Uruguay to Argentina and the Falkland Islands. In the Southeast Atlantic, they are distributed from Namibia to South Africa, and in the South Pacific, they are distributed from southern Chile to New Zealand, New South Wales, Tasmania, and the Kerguelen Islands (Fishbase 10/5/2004). Black Oreos are found in eastern New Zealand and Tasmanian waters south of 43°S (Fishbase 10/5/2004). We chose not to subtract points to account for both the widespread range of Smooth Oreos and the restricted range of Black Oreos.
-0.25	Species exhibits high natural population variability driven by broad–scale environmental change (e.g., El Nino; decadal oscillations).

+0.25	Species does not have special behaviors that increase ease or population consequences of capture OR has special behaviors that make it less vulnerable to fishing pressure (e.g., species is widely dispersed during spawning).
+0.25	Species has a strategy for sexual development that makes it especially resilient to fishing pressure (e.g., age at 50% maturity <1 year; extremely high fecundity).
+0.25	Species is distributed over a very wide range (e.g., throughout an entire hemisphere or ocean basin; e.g., swordfish; tuna; Patagonian toothfish).
+0.25	Species does not exhibit high natural population variability driven by broad-scale environmental change (e.g., El Nino; decadal oscillations).

0.50	Points for Life History

Abundance

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

Compared to natural or un-fished level, the species population is:

1.00

Low: Abundance or biomass is <75% of BMSY or similar proxy (e.g., spawning potential ratio).

2.00

Medium: Abundance or biomass is 75–125% of BMSY or similar proxy; OR population is approaching or recovering from an overfished condition; OR adequate information on abundance or biomass is not available.

The New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries assesses populations of Smooth and Black Oreos by designated areas and sub-areas. The Chatham Rise (areas 3A and 4) is the main fishing ground for Oreos, but other fisheries occur off Otago-Southland on the east coast of the South Island, in the Puysegur-Snares-Macquarie Ridge area south of the South Island (area 1), and in the Bounty/Pukaki area (area 6). The Ministry of Fisheries compares current population sizes at each area and subarea to the estimated sizes of the populations before they were fished.

Smooth Oreo:

In area 3A, biomass of Smooth Oreo is estimated to be 21% of the unfished biomass. and is less than the biomass needed to sustain “maximum constant yield” (BMCY), which fishery managers place at 44% of the unfished population size. In area 4, both the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) and the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council (SeaFIC) conducted population assessments of Smooth Oreo in 2001-2002. NIWA estimated that Smooth Oreo biomass was 55% of the unfished biomass. Both assessments found that Smooth Oreo biomass was about 50% of the unfished biomass, and that current catch rates in that area should maintain vulnerable biomass above the cutoff. Biomass estimates were unknown for areas 1 and 6 (Annala et al. 2004).

Black Oreo:

In area 3A, the biomass of Black Oreos is 52% of the unfished biomass. Managers consider this population size to be large, because it is 193% of the biomass needed to produce “maximum sustainable yield” (BMSY), which is a benchmark commonly used in fisheries management. In this case, BMSY is set at a population size equal to 27% of the unfished population biomass.

When managers assess the status of Black Oreos at the sub-area level, however, concerns arise. Sub-area 1 supports a healthy-sized population of Black Oreos, which is estimated to be 96% of the unfished biomass. Sub-areas 2 and 3, however, support population sizes that are only 29% and 7%, respectively, of the unfished biomass. The status of Black Oreo in areas 1,4, and 6 is unknown.

We awarded a score of 2.00 points here to account for high abundance of Smooth and Black Oreos in some areas, low abundance in other areas, and unknown levels of abundance in areas 1 and 6.

3.00

High: Abundance or biomass is >125% of BMSY or similar proxy.

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)

-0.25	The population is declining over a generational time scale (as indicated by biomass estimates or standardized CPUE). Managers use catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) data (e.g. the number of fish caught per 1000 hooks) to measure relative changes in abundance of fish populations. For both species of Oreos, annual CPUE rates have decreased in some of the management areas. In area 3A, sub-area 1, CPUE for Black Oreos decreased from 0.95 in the 1995-96 fishing year to 0.73 in 2001-02. In sub-area 2, CPUE decreased from 1.41 to 0.70 in that same time period. Likewise, in sub-area 3, CPUE decreased markedly from 1.79 to 0.24 from 1995 to 2002 (Annala et al. 2004).
-0.25	Age, size or sex distribution is skewed relative to the natural condition (e.g., truncated size/age structure or anomalous sex distribution). This is unknown. Very few small individuals have been caught (Annala et al. 2004).
-0.25	Species is listed as “overfished” OR species is listed as “depleted”, “endangered”, or “threatened” by recognized national or international bodies. Neither Smooth nor Black Oreo is listed as overfished (Annala et al. 2004).
-0.25	Current levels of abundance are likely to jeopardize the availability of food for other species or cause substantial change in the structure of the associated food web.

+0.25	The population is increasing over a generational time scale (as indicated by biomass estimates or standardized CPUE).
+0.25	Age, size or sex distribution is functionally normal.
+0.25	Species is close to virgin biomass.
+0.25	Current levels of abundance provide adequate food for other predators or are not known to affect the structure of the associated food web.

1.75	Points for Abundance

Habitat Quality and Fishing Gear Impacts

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

Select the option that most accurately describes the effect of the fishing method upon the habitat that it affects.

1.00	The fishing method causes great damage to physical and biogenic habitats (e.g., cyanide; blasting; bottom trawling; dredging). Fishers catch Smooth and Black Oreos using bottom trawls (Sealord 10/5/2004), which do extensive damage to benthic habitats.
2.00	The fishing method does moderate damage to physical and biogenic habitats (e.g., bottom gillnets; traps and pots; bottom longlines).
3.00	The fishing method does little damage to physical or biogenic habitats (e.g., hand picking; hand raking; hook and line; pelagic long lines; mid-water trawl or gillnet; purse seines).

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)

-0.25	Habitat for this species is so compromised from non-fishery impacts that the ability of the habitat to support this species is substantially reduced (e.g., dams; pollution; coastal development).
-0.25	Critical habitat areas (e.g., spawning areas) for this species are not protected by management using time/area closures, marine reserves, etc. Although the New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries recently closed 19 seamounts to fishing, only one of those seamounts was fished for Oreos. Smooth and Black Oreos are not protected from fishing at tens to hundreds of other seamounts that serve as critical habitat areas for the species.
-0.25	No efforts are being made to minimize damage from existing gear types OR new or modified gear is increasing habitat damage (e.g., fitting trawls with roller rigs or rockhopping gear; more robust gear for deep-sea fisheries). No gear innovations are being developed or implemented in an attempt to minimize the adverse effects on habitat from trawl gear in deep-sea fisheries in New Zealand (Lack et al. 2003).
-0.25	If gear impacts are substantial, resilience of affected habitats is very slow (e.g., deep water corals; rocky bottoms). Oreos aggregate around seamounts, which are considered to be highly vulnerable to disturbances. Deep-water corals are common on seamounts and rebound slowly from destruction by trawl gear (Lack et al. 2003).

+0.25	Habitat for this species remains robust and viable and is capable of supporting this species.
+0.25	Critical habitat areas (e.g., spawning areas) for this species are protected by management using time/area closures, marine reserves, etc.
+0.25	Gear innovations are being implemented over a majority of the fishing area to minimize damage from gear types OR no innovations necessary because gear effects are minimal.
+0.25	If gear impacts are substantial, resilience of affected habitats is fast (e.g., mud or sandy bottoms) OR gear effects are minimal.

0.25	Points for Habitat Quality and Fishing Gear Impacts

Management

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

Select the option that most accurately describes the current management of the fisheries of this species.

1.00	Regulations are ineffective (e.g., illegal fishing or overfishing is occurring) OR the fishery is unregulated (i.e., no control rules are in effect).
2.00	Management measures are in place over a major portion over the species’ range but implementation has not met conservation goals OR management measures are in place but have not been in place long enough to determine if they are likely to achieve conservation and sustainability goals. The New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries is responsible for the management of Smooth and Black Oreo fisheries. These fisheries are managed with the small fishery for Spiky Oreos (Neocyttus rhomboidalis). The ministry manages the Oreos as a combined species with quotas (called TACCs). Assessment data is poor, however, so it remains unclear if current TACCs adequately limit fishing pressure to a sustainable level.
3.00	Substantial management measures are in place over a large portion of the species range and have demonstrated success in achieving conservation and sustainability goals.

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)

-0.25	There is inadequate scientific monitoring of stock status, catch or fishing effort. While stock assessments are performed, the data are not generally reliable, and the populations are poorly understood. In general, managers do not know a lot about the biology and stock status of deep-sea fishes, such as Oreos. They assess Oreos with 3 separate assessments in different areas, area 3a, area 4, and areas 1 and 6. Assessments are unreliable in area 4 for Black Oreo, and the population status of both species is unknown in Areas 1 and 6 (Annala et al. 2004). According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), in 2002, virtually all reported catches of Oreos are from New Zealand fisheries (FAO 2004). That being said, there are unregulated and unreported catches, which are probably substantial, of both Smooth and Black Oreos in waters south of Tasmania.
-0.25	Management does not explicitly address fishery effects on habitat, food webs, and ecosystems.
-0.25	This species is overfished and no recovery plan or an ineffective recovery plan is in place. Managers do not consider either Smooth or Black Oreos to be overfished (Annala et al. 2004).
-0.25	Management has failed to reduce excess capacity in this fishery or implements subsidies that result in excess capacity in this fishery.

+0.25	There is adequate scientific monitoring, analysis and interpretation of stock status, catch and fishing effort.
+0.25	Management explicitly and effectively addresses fishery effects on habitat, food webs, and ecosystems.
+0.25	This species is overfished and there is a recovery plan (including benchmarks, timetables and methods to evaluate success) in place that is showing signs of success OR recovery plan is not needed.
+0.25	Management has taken action to control excess capacity or reduce subsidies that result in excess capacity OR no measures are necessary because fishery is not overcapitalized.

1.75	Points for Management

Bycatch

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

Select the option that most accurately describes the current level of bycatch and the consequences that result from fishing this species.

The term, "bycatch” used in this document excludes incidental catch of a species for which an adequate management framework exists.

The terms, “endangered, threatened, or protected,” used in this document refer to species status that is determined by national legislation such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (or another nation's equivalent), the IUCN Red List, or a credible scientific body such as the American Fisheries Society.

1.00	Bycatch in this fishery is high (>100% of targeted landings), OR regularly includes a “threatened, endangered or protected species.”
2.00	Bycatch in this fishery is moderate (10-99% of targeted landings) AND does not regularly include “threatened, endangered or protected species” OR level of bycatch is unknown. There are no estimates of bycatch in this fishery.
3.00	Bycatch in this fishery is low (<10% of targeted landings) and does not regularly include "threatened, endangered or protected species."

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)

-0.25	Bycatch in this fishery is a contributing factor to the decline of “threatened, endangered, or protected species" and no effective measures are being taken to reduce it.
-0.25	Bycatch of targeted or non-targeted species (e.g., undersize individuals) in this fishery is high and no measures are being taken to reduce it.
-0.25	Bycatch of this species (e.g., undersize individuals) in other fisheries is high OR bycatch of this species in other fisheries inhibits its recovery, and no measures are being taken to reduce it.
-0.25	The continued removal of the bycatch species contributes to its decline.

+0.25	Measures taken over a major portion of the species range have been shown to reduce bycatch of “threatened, endangered, or protected species” or bycatch rates are no longer deemed to affect the abundance of the “protected” bycatch species OR no measures needed because fishery is highly selective (e.g., harpoon; spear).
+0.25	There is bycatch of targeted (e.g., undersize individuals) or non-targeted species in this fishery and measures (e.g., gear modifications) have been implemented that have been shown to reduce bycatch over a large portion of the species range OR no measures are needed because fishery is highly selective (e.g., harpoon; spear). The Ministry of Fisheries (2004) reports that in the early years of the Oreo fisheries, dumping of small and unwanted fish was problematic. Discarding of undersized individuals is no longer considered to be a problem. We chose not to award points here, because there was no indication that management measures caused this decline in discarding.
+0.25	Bycatch of this species in other fisheries is low OR bycatch of this species in other fisheries inhibits its recovery, but effective measures are being taken to reduce it over a large portion of the range.
+0.25	The continued removal of the bycatch species in the targeted fishery has had or will likely have little or no impact on populations of the bycatch species OR there are no significant bycatch concerns because the fishery is highly selective (e.g., harpoon; spear).

2.00	Points for Bycatch

References

Annala, J.H., K.J. Sullivan, N.W. McL. Smith, M.H. Griffiths, P.R. Todd, P.M. Mace, and A.M. Connell (Comps.). 2004. Report from the Fishery Assessment Plenary, April 2004: Stock Assessments and Yield Estimates. (Unpublished report held in NIWA library, Wellington.)

Fishbase. 10/5/2004. Available online at: http://www.fishbase.org.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2004. Fisheries Department, Fishery Information. Data and Statistics Unit: Capture Data through 2002.

Lack, M., K. Short, and A. Willock. 2003. Managing Risk and Uncertainty in Deep-Sea Fisheries: Lessons from Orange Roughy. TRAFFIC Oceania and WWF Australia.

Sealord. 10/5/2004. Available online at: http://www.sealord.co.nz.