L. Paul Fanning
1
and Hazel A. Oxenford
2
Abstract
Flyingfish have been extensively studied in the eastern Caribbean and many of the issues surrounding them are well known. They support some of the region’s valuable and growing fisheries, in spite of which, the regional flyingfish fisheries continue to operate essentially unmanaged. In a single species context flyingfish appear to be a productive and lightly fished resource, perhaps not warranting strong management measures. There are, however, possible dangers in this view.
The Lesser Antilles Pelagic Ecosystem project of the FAO has completed a four-year study which included considering flyingfish, and the related issues, under an ecosystem approach.
Results of these investigations included both ecosystem models and stakeholder consultations on relevant issues. What has emerged is consistent with our past knowledge, but also provides a means of estimating the less direct interactions of fish and fishing. The growing longline fisheries of the region include both technical and economic dependence on flyingfish to a much higher degree than was previously considered. The trophic dependence of dolphinfish on flyingfish in the eastern Caribbean was well-known, but the sensitivity of their responses was modelled and shows dolphinfish to be very vulnerable to incidental depletion i.e. without any change in their fishery catches. The model results presented here may be revised in future but are clearly indicative of the importance, strength and direction of ecological, technical and economic interactions involving flyingfish.
The continuing and often discussed weaknesses in the regional fisheries data collection systems are a particular concern for flyingfish, as growth in flyingfish catch is taking place in completely unmonitored bait fisheries. Actual catches of flyingfish today are almost certainly substantially higher than the available information indicates.
1 present address, Food and Agriculture Organization, Marine Fisheries Department, West Wharf, Karachi, Pakistan;
2
Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies, University of the West Indies, Cave Hill, Barbados.
Introduction
The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) is becoming the main reference framework for managing fisheries and implementing the principles of sustainable development using the following working definition (FAO 2003):
‘
An Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries strives to balance diverse societal objectives, by taking into account the knowledge and uncertainties about biotic, abiotic, and human components of ecosystems and their interactions and applying an integrated approach to fisheries within ecologically meaningful boundaries
’
The principles that underpin EAF clearly emerged in the 1995 Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries, although they were inherent in earlier international instruments. EAF was more explicitly addressed in the Reykjavik Declaration, which was adopted at the Reykjavik
Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem in 2001 and the Plan of
Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, encourages nations to apply the ecosystem approach by 2010 with specific reference to the Reykjavik Declaration.
While applying an EAF implies a sincere societal commitment to a strategy that promotes conservation, sustainable use and equitable sharing of ecosystem services, such application does

not need to follow a single blueprint but should rather be consistent with local context, means and culture.
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), with funding from the Government of Japan, provided technical assistance to fisheries institutions of selected countries in the Lesser Antilles to develop the information tools, including ecosystem modelling, use of Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) and collection of standard fisheries data, to improve management of their pelagic resources and fisheries in accordance with EAF. This project, the Lesser Antilles Pelagic
Ecosystem (LAPE) project was completed in 2007 and has provided the Lesser Antilles countries with a comprehensive description of their pelagic resources and the technical and ecological relationships that govern them.
The LAPE project included field studies of cetacean abundance and distribution, forage species abundance and distribution, as well as diet analysis of several important fish and cetacean species within and adjoining the LAPE study area (Figure 1). An extensive synthesis of published information with the project’s own studies was used to estimate diet composition
(Heileman et al. 2008) and other aspects of ecosystem structure for the entire gamut of pelagic species and functional groups. Fisheries in each of the participating states were characterized in terms of fleet composition, effort or capacity and annual catches (Mohammed et al. 2008a). The ecosystem structure and function was modelled using Ecopath with Ecosim to capture the roles, importance and sensitivity of key pelagic species, especially those of interest to fisheries
(Mohammed et al 2008b). These modelling results were used to assess management issues identified by extensive stakeholder consultations (Grant, 2008).

Figure 1. The Lesser Antilles Pelagic Ecosystem (LAPE) study area and participating countries.
In addition to this recent work, flyingfishes in the eastern Caribbean have been extensively studied by the 1987-1993 International Development Research Council (IDRC) funded Eastern
Caribbean Flyingfish Project (Mahon et al. 1986, Oxenford et al. 1993), by several researchers and graduate students (e.g. Lewis et al. 1962, Storey 1983, Khokiattiwong 1988, Lao 1989,
Boyce 1995, Dean 1996, Gomes 1998) and are monitored and assessed through the FAO
WECAFC Ad hoc Working Group on Flyingfish (FAO 1999, 2002, 2008). As a result the biology and fisheries of flyingfish have been examined in considerable detail, allowing the ecosystem issues to be highlighted here. Flyingfish, Hirundichthys affinis in particular, provides a good example of a resource that is both a key forage species and an important fisheries species with many trophic, economic and technical linkages.

Flyingfish biology and ecology
There are at least 11 species of flyingfish known from the eastern Caribbean (Carpenter, 2002).
These include Hirundichthys affinis which is by far the most important species in the fishery catches. Other species in the catches include small amounts of Cypselurus cyanopterus as well as occasional catches of C. melanurus, H. speculiger and others (National reports included in
Oxenford et al. 2007, Chapt. 1-7). Although H. affinis dominates the catch, there is some evidence that several other species may be equally or more abundant in the ecosystem although apparently less accessible to the fishery. In a transect sighting survey conducted in 1988 the visually identified species composition for adults was 52% Parexocoetus brachypterus , 47% H. affinis and 1% Cypselurus cyanopterus (Oxenford et al., 1995a) .
On the same survey, a complementary sampling program using dipnets and lights at night estimated juvenile species composition to be 50% P. brachypterus , 41% Exocoetus volitans and only 8% H. affinis
(Oxenford et al., 1995b). The apparent disparity between relative abundance in the catch and that seen in the surveys most likely results from heightened availability of H. affinis to the fishing gear due to its spawning behaviour.
H. affinis is essentially an annual species, completing its lifecycle in approximately one year
(Campana et al., 1993, Oxenford et al., 1994). Although there is some bimodality in the size composition and timing of catches, this does not appear to represent annual cohorts but rather variations in growth rate and spawning time within the single cohort (Hunte et al., 2007). The strong seasonal pattern in catches is likely due to a combination of the inter-cohort gap in adults and emigration from known fishing areas (Khokiattiwong et al., 2000).
Flyingfishes are an important group of prey species for a range of large pelagic predators
(Heileman, 2008 and references therein). This is especially so for dolphinfish in the eastern
Caribbean where flyingfish was estimated at more than 40% of the total diet of dolphinfish
(Oxenford and Hunte, 1999). Although considerably higher than reported from other areas, this fraction seems feasible given the known concentrations of flyingfish in the area and the very close migratory timing of flyingfish and dolphinfish.
Flyingfish fisheries
The flyingfish fisheries are concentrated in the southern end of the Lesser Antilles chain with important fisheries in Barbados, Grenada, Martinique, St. Lucia and Tobago. Fishers in
Dominica have complained that flyingfish have ‘disappeared’ from their grounds in recent times but were previously important there (Grant, 2008). In the northern parts of the island chain (St.
Kitts/Nevis, Antigua and Barbuda) flyingfish are rarely caught and have never been an important fishery.
Although there are small catches of species other than H. affinis in the flyingfish gear, to all intents and purposes this fishery is conducted to target H. affinis . The fishery depends on the spawning behaviour of H. affinis which spawns on floating objects. The sticky eggs adhere to the flotsam to maintain bouyancy. Flyingfish fisheries today are primarily conducted with a combination of gillnets, dipnets and 'screelers' which are floating debris attached to the gear, usually palm fronds or sugar cane leaves. The spawning flyingfish become entangled in the gillnet beneath the screelers. Formerly common, dipnets are still used today to supplement the newer gillnets when fish concentrations are very high.
The directed flyingfish fishery is actually a multi-species, multi-gear activity. While travelling to and from port and while the gillnets are soaking, fishers use hook and line gear, either trolled or stationary, to fish for regional large pelagic species, primarily dolphinfish, but wahoo and, in

Barbados, ocean triggerfish are also important. Flyingfish catch is used for bait for the hook and line fishing. The economics of this fishery make the two activities largely inseparable as neither is likely to be economically viable alone. Barbados has the largest flyingfish fishery and lands the majority (~65%) of the reported regional catch (Mohammed et al. 2008a). In Barbados it is a high value-added fishery especially through sales in the tourism sector (Mahon et al., 2007a).
Almost the entire catch, excluding that small amount used at-sea for bait, is sold for human consumption. There are also important fisheries in Tobago, Martinique and St Lucia for human consumption but these other islands do not realize the same degree of value-added benefit that
Barbados does.
The multi-species nature of the flyingfish fisheries means that management measures must be adjusted to ensure adequate opportunity to fish for, and prevent over-exploitation of, the associated target species, primarily dolphinfish and wahoo, and the regional distribution will require multilateral management by the states involved. These and other management considerations are reviewed by Mahon et al. (2007b).
A fishery re-directed at flyingfish specifically as bait instead of a foodfish has emerged in concert with the development and expansion of longlining in the region. This is particularly important in
Grenada and on the increase in all the countries except Barbados. As the longline fishery initially developed the bait was commonly flyingfish. However, these were highly seasonal and longliners adopted small coastal pelagic species taken with beach seines to augment supplies when flyingfish were not available. With the growing demand this supply has proved insufficient in many areas and unless flyingfish was available the longliners have been limited by bait supply.
Barbados is an exception in this respect because, with the considerable expense of off-season storage of flyingfish for bait, they adopted a combination of imported bait (mostly frozen squid) with flyingfish when they are available. The imported bait has proved more cost-effective and availability is more reliable than attempting to store adequate supplies of frozen flyingfish.
The catch statistics on flyingfish for the region are incomplete, for example there are currently no catches reported for Martinique although it is known that there is a significant flyingfish fishery still active there. Also, flyingfish used for bait, whether incidentally or as a directed supply, are not recorded in any of the countries involved. A recompilation of regional pelagic catches based on available national data sources (Mohammed et al. 2008a) did not reflect a number of known flyingfish fisheries e.g. Grenada, Martinique or Tobago (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Reported catches as reconstructed by the LAPE project. Known flyingfish fisheries in Grenada, Tobago and Martinique are not included in these data.

Issue: Dolphinfish-flyingfish linkage
Dolphinfish and flyingfish are tightly linked through technical, trophic and economic interactions. In terms of technical interaction, the majority of the catches of both species are taken in a fishery which catches both species using different gears on the same trips. Part of the flyingfish catch is utilized for bait on troll lines directed at dolphinfish and wahoo. This multispecies, multi-gear fishery is highly seasonal as dolphinfish and flyingfish are closely synchronized in their presence in the region. It has long been assumed that the dolphinfish follow the flyingfish as they migrate and spawn.
There is a strong trophic dependence by dolphinfish on flyingfish and Ecopath model results indicate that the dolphinfish stock is very sensitive to changes in the flyingfish biomass
(Mohammed et al. 2008b). This tight linkage results from two factors. First, there is an exceptionally high proportion of flyingfish in the dolphinfish diet reported in the eastern
Caribbean (Lewis and Axelsen, 1967; Oxenford and Hunte, 1999). although the proportion is lower in dolphinfish diet studies from other areas in the Western Central Atlantic (Oxenford
1999) and in adjoining Atlantic waters (Júnior, 2000; Pimenta et al., 2001; Satoh et al., 2004).
The strong regional dietary dependence on flyingfish in the Eastern Caribbean likely reflects regional concentrations of flyingfish, particularly of spawning groups. Secondly, cannibalism is a significant fraction of the dolphinfish diet in all areas and any reduced availability of flyingfish prey is likely to be offset by increased cannibalism and resultant increases in predation mortality for dolphinfish. The Ecopath model of Mohammed et al. (2008b) estimated the instantaneous predation mortality rate of dolphinfish cannibalism at 4.3yr
-1
, almost four times its rate of predation on flyingfish. Thus increased effort on flyingfish for bait, even without concomitant increases in dolphinfish catches could still result in declines in dolphinfish biomass.
The impacts on the flyingfish biomass are uncertain as it will depend on the balance between increased fishing and reduced predation. The fishing mortality (F) on flyingfish has been quite low and predation mortality is far more important in the flyingfish stock dynamics. Results from the Ecopath with Ecosim model of Mohammed et al.(2008b) show a range of plausible scenarios in which the biomass of dolphinfish is negatively affected by increased catches of flyingfish. In one example (Figure 3) the F on each species is arbitrarily increased from the base level in the balanced model to 1.0. This was done for each species singly and together.
Figure 3. The simulated change in population biomass in response to a large increase in fishing mortality for each or both species from the base level in the balanced model (F=0.13 for dolphinfish and F=0.013 for flyingfish) to F=1.0.

Both species are relatively insensitive to increased F on dolphinfish alone. In fact, when dolphinfish F was increased, there was an apparent increase in flyingfish biomass, consistent with release from a slight degree of predator (top-down) control. When F on both species was increased the results were quite similar to increased F on the flyingfish alone scenario, with a decrease in biomass of both flyingfish and dolphinfish by around 40-50%. There is clearly a significant degree of donor (bottom-up) control evident when flyingfish F is increased.
Increasing effort in the gillnet/troll fishery which targets flyingfish, dolphinfish and wahoo will almost certainly result in decreased biomass of dolphinfish, however the impact on flyingfish could be positive, negative or neutral depending on the offsetting changes between increased fishing and reduced predation.
There are a number of other predators and predator groups that feed heavily on flyingfish. The biomass flows reported in Mohammed et al. (2008b) involving flyingfish are represented in
Figure 4 (panel A) and its three primary predators, dolphinfish (panel B), large mesopelagic fish
(panel C) and large squid (panel D). These latter two groups are not species but functional groups defined for modelling purposes as species sharing common trophic characteristics. Large mesopelagic fish include species like Gempylus serpens, Alepisaurus ferox, Ruvettus pretiosus and Brama brama. Large squids include species from the families Onychoteuthidae,
Architeuthidae and others, with adult sizes greater than 50 cm mantle length. As a note; both these functional groups display cannibalism however, in multi-species functional groups this may indicate either intraspecific predation (the usual understanding of cannibalism) or interspecific predation within the same group. Both types are likely present in these groups.
Cannibalism is shown by the fact that there is a column for the captioned species eating itself, the circle in that case will always sit right on the line, underneath its own name. In terms of total consumption of flyingfish (Figure 4A), large mesopelagic fish and large squids follow closely after dolphinfish, however neither of these two functional groups are as heavily dependent on flyingfish in terms of fraction of their diet (0.6% and 6.6% respectively). Furthermore, these groups, while cannibalistic to some degree are much less so than dolphinfish. Taken together, this means that these two groups are far less sensitive to changes in flyingfish availability than are dolphinfish.
The model results presented here may be revised in the future but they are clearly indicative of the importance, strength and direction of ecological, technical and economic interactions involving flyingfish.

A) Flyingfish B) Dolphinfish
C) Large mesopelagics D) Large squid
Figure 4. Biomass flows as estimated by Ecopath model of Mohammed et al. (2008b). Colours indicate consumption by (blue), predation on (red), and fisheries catches from (green), the named group in each panel. The groups are named and arranged as in Mohammed et al. (2008) where TR/LL/GN is troll, longline, gillnet. Trophic level of the indicated group is marked by the horizontal line. The circles indicate the magnitude of the biomass flow
(tonnes/km
2
/yr) using a constant log ratio scale on all panels. Note in panel C and D that the large squid and large

mesopelagic groups are both cannibalistic, and each is both a predator and a prey of the other (overlapping red and blue circles)
Issue: Flyingfish spawning fishery
The flyingfish fisheries, for food or bait, operate with gillnets, dipnets and tethered floating attractants (‘screelers’). The fishery depends on the spawning behaviour of flyingfish which become entangled in the nets or can be dipped directly from aggregated shoals as they attempt to spawn on the screelers. Thus the fishery selectively targets spawners, often considered a risky practice.
Furthermore, in addition to the spawners removed by the fishery, the egg masses spawned on screelers are routinely destroyed when they are recovered by the fishers at the end of fishing. It can be argued that the screelers should be released and allowed to float away after a day’s fishing in the hope that the spawned eggs on them could develop. Fishers are reluctant to do this for two reasons related to the aggregating effects of the screelers. First, another fisher could locate and benefit from the aggregations attracted by the loose screeler. Secondly, and more importantly for the fishers, the drift of the screeler will entrain the aggregated fish beneath it and generally carry them away from the present fishing locality.
Currently flyingfish experience a relatively low rate of fishing mortality and the existing fishery appears sustainable in spite of targetting spawners and the ancillary destruction of spawning products (FAO 2008). However, nothing in this would suggest that significant increases in flyingfish catches are sustainable under current fishery practices.
Issue: Longlining and flyingfish
The regional governments and fishing industry have spent considerable effort over the last 15-20 years to build the region’s capacity in large pelagic fisheries, especially through the development of longlining. There has been marked success, with several countries now operating significant numbers of medium and large longliners (7-15m and >15m), for example Barbados has 37 registered longliners, Grenada over 200 and Trinidad 17 (Mohammed et al. 2008a) There are also smaller numbers of longliners in Dominica, St. Lucia and St. Vincent. Longliners require a continuous supply of bait and so growth in longlining has created a parallel growth in the demand for bait. Flyingfish is popular for use as bait when available but the highly seasonal availability limited longliners in the off-season. The locally available alternatives are small coastal pelagic species caught in beach seines, primarily scads ( Decapterus sp., also known locally as robins) and jacks ( Selar crumenopthalmus ). These catches were also a traditional source of relatively low-cost fish available for food in rural areas (Grant and Berkes, 2006; Grant
2008). In some cases this was an important component of the protein available. The increased demand for these species as bait in the large pelagics fishery has resulted in increased prices and in some instances the bait sales have completely removed the small pelagics from the local food supply (Grant 2008). Grant (2008) also reported that fishers have been moving between islands to obtain the bait they require. The St. Vincent Grenadines had become a bait supply point for fishers from places such as Grenada, Tobago and even Venezuela, resulting in St Vincent moving to make it illegal to export baitfish (R. Ryan, CFO, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, pers. comm.).
A reliable source of bait has become critical for the continued growth, or even maintenance, of the regional longline fishery. With the exception of Barbados, flyingfish fisheries specifically for bait have been growing. It is worth noting that the economic and social value of flyingfish in
Barbados for food has precluded much increase in its use in the longline fishery. Barbadian longliners use flyingfish when available but have been using imported bait, frozen squid, for a number of years, augmented with flyingfish during the season (Walcott et al., in press).

In addition to the demand for flyingfish as bait, the longliner fishery also depends on flyingfish catch as a key economic component of their landed value. Annually, about 15% by weight of the catch sold from Barbados longliners is flyingfish, and another 10% is dolphinfish (Walcott et al., in press). These two species are taken by directed effort during lengthy longline trips and also, at certain times, entire short trips may be made solely for these species i.e. no longlining at all (A.
Kinch, longliner owner and captain, Barbados, pers. comm.).
The regional statistical systems have little information on the magnitude and trends in the bait fisheries. At this point it is likely that the flyingfish catches have already increased substantially to provide bait but little or no quantitative information is available. The ability to monitor and assess trends in the fishing mortality and sustainability of the flyingfish fisheries depends on developing new information sources on the bait fisheries and ensuring these catches are represented in the assessment process. This is equally true for the small coastal pelagic species used for bait.
Conclusions
Flyingfish, H. affinis , being a well studied and important forage fish in the tropical oceanic realm, as well as supporting significant small-scale commercial fisheries in the eastern
Caribbean, provides a good example of a species for which EAF management is highly appropriate. Here we have used an ecological model and touched upon various technical and economic interactions relevant to the flyingfish fishery within its ecosystem which demonstrate important differences in the management advice that may arise from an ecosystem approach as opposed to a single species assessment.
Perhaps the most obvious linkages are ecological. Flyingfishes are a key component in the tropical pelagic ocean food web (Parin 1968), and their importance to the diet of other commercially important species is well recognized (see Oxenford,1986; Heilemann et al., 2008) but has never been quantified within the context of the ecosystem. The preliminary Ecopath with
Ecosim model recently developed under the LAPE project (Mohammed et al., 2008b) can be used to model the likely outcome of increasing fishing mortality on any one or more species within the Lesser Antilles ecosystem, and is used here to demonstrate a range of possible outcomes when fishing mortality is increased for flyingfish and/or the closely linked dolphinfish.
Interestingly, the outcomes for flyingfish are similar if fishing mortality is increased solely on flyingfish or simultaneously on flyingfish and dolphinfish (as is more likely with the current technological linkages in the fishery). However, the outcome is very different if only dolphinfish mortality is increased. A similar disparity of outcomes is also apparent for dolphinfish under these plausible scenarios, and of particular interest is the sensitivity of the dolphinfish stock to increases in flyingfish fishing mortality. Single species assessments of these annual species, based on their life history parameters, have suggested that they can withstand relatively high levels of fishing effort without risk of stock collapse (Oxenford et al., 2007; FAO, 2008 ).
However, a quantitative consideration of their trophic linkages indicates that the dolphinfish fishery is unlikely to be sustainable with a marked increase in flyingfish catches.
There are a combination of economic, technical and ecological linkages surrounding flyingfish which mean that it has potentially significant effects on at least three regional fisheries sectors, the longliners, the beach seines and the troll/gillnet fishery for oceanic pelagics. Although flyingfish stocks appear able to sustain the current levels of fishing and perhaps may be able to sustain expanded fisheries, the linked stocks may not do so. The current direction towards expansion of the longline fisheries is creating demands on other sectors for bait. While expanding flyingfish catches solely for bait may be feasible, this will almost certainly impose

negative pressures on predator species, especially dolphinfish. Furthermore, given the current mode of fishing flyingfish (as part of a multispecies troll/gillnet fishery), any expansion of the flyingfish fishery is likely to also include increased catches in dolphin and wahoo. Since these other species are a critical component of the economic viability of flyingfish fishing they will not be willingly excluded by fishers.
The increased use of imported bait, as is done in Barbados, may also not entirely relieve fishing pressure on flyingfish from the longline sector. A recent, and preliminary, economic review of the Barbados longliners indicates that, in addition to the flyingfish used for bait, the flyingfish and dolphin longliners catch and sell make up about 25% of their annual landings, and are crucial to the economic viability of longlining (Walcott et al., in press). In the Barbados processing sector, there is a heavy reliance on flyingfish to maintain the core activities and capacities of the processing sector, especially the human resources. Flyingfish provides a significant fraction of the fish processing employment and is a key element in marketing of other seafood products as well (J. Morgan, seafood processor, Barbados pers. comm.).
The need for comprehensive and timely statistics on all fisheries has been noted many times. The development of specialized bait fisheries, both flyingfish and small coastal pelagics, has created a market avenue which is not recorded well, if at all, in the LAPE area. In many cases the bait sales are made from boat to boat with no landing of catch at all. In addition to improved recording on the traditional fisheries, special efforts to assess the magnitude and composition of bait sales are needed if a realistic assessment and management approach are to be applied to flyingfish, or the small coastal pelagics also used for bait.
For short-lived, i.e. annual species there is little or no conservation benefit from allowing fish to escape after terminal spawning. In such circumstances a management regime based on a fixed annual escapement strategy may be the most effective means of ensuring adequate spawning success for each generation. This could be achieved by means of time and area closures.
Enhanced spawning could be fostered by provision of artificial spawning substrates within the closures i.e. protected from fishing. Earlier analyses of management options (Mahon, 1989) had considered a fixed escapement strategy as best to ensure long-term sustainability but noted considerable practical difficulty implementing it. He noted that optimal harvesting, assessed in terms of yield per recruit, would require that the fleet and processing sectors both have sufficient capacity to absorb the peak catches. This would imply that in many non-peak years there would be excess capacity with resulting financial and social pressures to allow additional catches.
It is suggested here that a precautionary implementation of a fixed escapement strategy would be to set a minimum escapement threshold well above that for optimal yield, accepting that in peak years there would be potential yield foregone. This could be coupled with a mid-seasonal cap on maximum catch which would be adjusted on the basis of in-season assessment of the yearclass
(i.e. stock) size to provide a more adaptable approach. Such a fish-assess-fish seasonal management scheme will need prompt and accurate data and analysis on the fishery and relevant biological indicators of stock size. This will place a considerable challenge on both the assessment biologists and on the fishers themselves since they will be a crucial element of making such a system work.
A critical issue that will remain is that flyingfish are regionally distributed and fished in numerous jurisdictions. Effective management of the increasing demands for flyingfish, for food and for bait, will require that regional states co-ordinate their management efforts. This is one case where the evidence suggests that the success or failure to achieve a sustainable fishery within the Lesser Antilles is in the hands of the countries in the region.

References
Boyce, S. 1995. Source of Variability in Catch Per Trip for the Flyingfish ( Hirundichthys affinis )
Fishery in Barbados. MPhil thesis, University of the West Indies, Cave Hill. Barbados, 79pp
Campana, S.E., H.A. Oxenford and J.N. Smith. 1993. Radiochemical determination of longevity in flyingfish ( Hirundichthys affinis ) using Th-228/Ra-228. Marine Ecology Progress Series 100:
211-219
Carpenter, K.E. (ed.) 2002. The living marine resources of the Western Central Atlantic. Volume
2: Bony fishes part 1 (Acipenseridae to Grammatidae). FAO Species Identification Guide for
Fishery Purposes and American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Special Publication
No. 5. Rome, FAO. pp. 601-1374.
Deane, R. 1996. Otolith Age Validation and Growth rate Variation in flyingfish ( Hirundichthys affinis ) from the Eastern Caribbean. MPhil thesis, University of the West Indies, Cave Hill.
Barbados, 43pp.
FAO. 1999. Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission Report of the First Meeting of the
WECAFC Ad Hoc Flyingfish Working Group of the Eastern Caribbean. FAO Fisheries Report
No. 613, 45 pp.
FAO. 2002. Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission Report of the Second Meeting of the
WECAFC Ad Hoc Flyingfish Working Group of the Eastern Caribbean. FAO Fisheries Report
No. 670, 156 pp.
FAO Fisheries Department. 2003. The ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO Technical
Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. No. 4, Suppl. 2. Rome, 112 p.
FAO. 2008. Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission Report of the Third Meeting of the
WECAFC Ad Hoc Flyingfish Working Group of the Eastern Caribbean. FAO Fisheries Report
No. XXX, in press.
Gomes, C. 1997. Molecular Genetic Analyses of the Four-wing Flyingfish ( Hirundichthys affinis ), in the Central Western Atlantic and their Implications for Fisheries Management. PhD thesis, University of the West Indies, Cave Hill, Barbados, 211pp.
Grant, S. and F. Berkes. 2007. Fisher knowledge as expert system: A case from the longline fishery of Grenada, the Eastern Caribbean. Fisheries Research 84:162–170
Grant, S. 2008. Assessment of fisheries management issues in the Lesser Antilles and the ecosystem approach to fisheries management. Technical Document No. 9 of Scientific Basis for
Ecosystem-Based Management in the Lesser Antilles Including Interactions with Marine
Mammals and Other Top Predators. FAO FI:GCP/RLA/140/JPN Barbados. xi + 254pp. 20 tables and 25 figures.
Heileman, S., E. Mohammed and P Fanning. 2008. Derivation of diet compositions in the Lesser
Antilles Pelagic Ecosystem. Technical Document No. 7 of Scientific Basis for Ecosystem-Based
Management in the Lesser Antilles Including Interactions with Marine Mammals and Other Top
Predators FAO. FI:GCP/RLA/140/JPN Barbados. vii + 77pp. 2 tables and 1 figure.
Hunte, W., R. Mahon and H.A. Oxenford. 2007. Synopsis of biological characteristics of the flyingfish, Hirundichthys affinis , relevant to assessment and management. p51-54 in Oxenford,
H.A., R. Mahon and W. Hunte. 2007 [eds.]. The Biology and Management of Eastern Caribbean
Flyingfish. Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies, University of the West
Indies, Barbados, 267pp.

Júnior, T.V., 2000. Relações tróficas dos grandes peixes pelágicos da região equatorial sudoeste do oceano Atlântico. Fundação Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Curso De Pós-Graduação
Em Oceanografia Biológica, 144 p.
Khokiattiwong, S. 1988. Seasonal abundance and reproduction of the flyingfishes Hirundichthys affinis and Parexocoetus brachypterus near Barbados. MSc thesis, McGill University, Montreal,
Canada, 152pp.
Khokiattiwong, S., R. Mahon, W. Hunte. 2000. Seasonal abundance and reproduction of the fourwing flyingfish, Hirundichthys affinis , off Barbados. Environ.Biol.Fish.59:43-60
Lao, M.R. 1989. Distribution and abundance of flotsam, larval fish and juvenile fish off
Barbados with particular reference to the exocoetidae. MSc thesis, McGill University, Montreal,
Canada, 147pp.
Lewis, J.B., J.K. Brunditt and A.G. Fish. 1962. The biology of the flyingfish, Hirundichthys affinis (Gunther). Bull. Mar. Sci. 12: 73-94.
Lewis, J.B., and F. Axelsen. 1967. Food of the dolphin, Coryphaena hippurus (Linnaeus) and of the yellowfin tuna, Thuunnus albacares (Lowe), from Barbados, West Indies. J. Fish. Res. Bd.
Can., 24: 683-686.
Mahon, R., H. Oxenford and W. Hunte (eds). 1986. Development strategies for flyingfish fisheries of the eastern Caribbean. Workshop Proceedings, IDRC-MR128e, 148 pp.
Mahon, R., C. Parker, T. Sinckler, S. Willoughby and J. Johnson. 2007a. The value of Barbados’ fisheries: a preliminary assessment. Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development, Barbados, Fisheries Management Plan Public Information Document No. 2, 24pp.
Mahon, R., W. Hunte and H.A. Oxenford. 2007b. Overview of options for management of eastern Caribbean flyingfish fisheries. p259-263 in Oxenford, H.A., R. Mahon and W. Hunte.
2007 [eds.]. The Biology and Management of Eastern Caribbean Flyingfish. Centre for Resource
Management and Environmental Studies, University of the West Indies, Barbados, 267pp.
Manooch, C.S. III, D. L. Mason and R. S. Nelson, 1983. Food and gastrointestinal parasites of dolphin, Coryphaena hippurus , collected along the southeastern and gulf coasts of the United
States. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-124. 36 p.
Mohammed E., P. Fanning, C. Parker, D. Theophille, L. Martin, S Punnett, R. Wilkins, J.
Rambally, P. Phillip, C. Isaac, P. James and A. Barrett. 2008a. Estimated catch, price and value for national fleet sectors from pelagic fisheries in the Lesser Antilles. Technical Document No. 1 of Scientific Basis for Ecosystem-Based Management in the Lesser Antilles Including
Interactions with Marine Mammals and Other Top Predators FAO. FI:GCP/RLA/140/JPN
Barbados. vii + 52pp. 18 tables and 3 figures.
Mohammed, E., M. Vasconcellos, S. Mackinson, P. Fanning, S. Heileman and F. Carocci. 2008b.
A Trophic Model Of The Lesser Antilles Pelagic Ecosystem. Technical Document No. 2 of
Scientific Basis for Ecosystem-Based Management in the Lesser Antilles Including Interactions with Marine Mammals and Other Top Predators FAO. FI:GCP/RLA/140/JPN Barbados. xiii +
168 pp. 14 tables and 61 figures.
Oxenford, H.A. 1986. Synopsis of the biological data on the four-winged flyingfish,
Hirundichthys affinis , Gunther. p51-88 in Mahon, R., H.A. Oxenford and W. Hunte [eds.].
Development strategies for flyingfish fisheries of the eastern Caribbean. Proceedings of an

IDRC-sponsored workshop at the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill, Barbados 22-23
October 1985. IDRC-MR128e, 148p.
Oxenford, H.A. 1999. Biology of the dolphinfish ( Coryphaena hippurus ) in the western central
Atlantic: a review. Scientia Marina 63(3-4): 277-301
Oxenford, H.A., R. Mahon and W. Hunte (eds). 1993. The Eastern Caribbean Flyingfish Project.
OECS Fishery Report No. 9, 171 pp.
Oxenford, H. A. and W. Hunte, 1999. Feeding habits of the dolphinfish ( Coryphaena hippurus ) in the eastern Caribbean. Scientia Marina 63(3-4):303-315.
Oxenford, H.A., W. Hunte, R. Deane and S.E. Campana. 1994. Otolith age validation and growth rate variation in flyingfish (Hirundichthys affinis) from the eastern Caribbean. Marine Biology
118: 585-592.
Oxenford, H.A., R. Mahon and W. Hunte. 1995a. Distribution and relative abundance of flyingfish (Exocoetidae) in the eastern Caribbean. I. Adults. Marine Ecology Progress Series117:
11-23.
Oxenford, H.A., R. Mahon and W. Hunte. 1995a. Distribution and relative abundance of flyingfish (Exocoetidae) in the eastern Caribbean. III. Juveniles. Marine Ecology Progress
Series117: 39-47.
Oxenford, H.A., R. Mahon and W. Hunte. 2007 [eds.]. The Biology and Management of Eastern
Caribbean Flyingfish. Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies, University of the West Indies, Barbados, 267pp.
Parin, N.V. 1968. Ichthyofauna of the epipleagic zone. Israel Program. Sci. Transl., 206p.
Pimenta, E.G., F.R. Marques-Lima G.S. and A.F. Amorim, 2001. Marlin project: tag-andrelease,biometrics and stomach content of billfish in Cabo Frio City, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. Col.
Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 53:371-375.
Samlalsingh, S., H.A. Oxenford and J. Rennie. 1999. A successful small-scale longline fishery in
Grenada. Proceedings of the Gulf & Caribbean Fisheries Institute 46: 3-21
Satoh, K., K. Yokawa, H. Saito, H. Matsunaga, H. Okamoto and Y. Uozumi. 2004. Preliminary stomach contents analysis of pelagic fish collected by Shoyo-Maru 2002 research cruise in the
Atlantic Ocean. Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 56(3): 1096-1114.
Storey, K. 1983. Aspects of the Biology and Fishery of the Flyingfish ( Hirundichthys affinis ) in
Barbados. MPhil thesis, University of the West Indies, Cave Hill. Barbados, 161pp
Walcott, J., H.A. Oxenford and P. Schumann. 2008. Current status of the longline fishery in
Barbados. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 61:(in press)