- Base assessment: integrated SS3 model for Subarea 48.1 (Mardones et al. 2024, WG-SAM-2024/26) — 40+ years of fishery, survey (SISO, AMLR), environmental and penguin-abundance data, across 5 strata (BS, EI, GS, Join, SSIW)
- Limitation: that model still treats 48.1 as spatially closed — one population, no movement between strata
- Already underway: migrating the assessment to a spatially explicit, age/sex-structured state-space Bayesian model that estimates movement between strata as a transition matrix — encouraging preliminary diagnostics, work in progress
- Convening the Krill Spatial Modelling Initiative (KSMI): a collaborative mechanism to bring acoustic, oceanographic and CEMP (predator) data into this movement-capable assessment, aligned with SKEG’s Krill Stock Hypothesis (KSH)
11 September 2026
Where I am now: spatial stock assessment for 48.1
The gap: modeling vs. management
- CCAMLR’s krill catch advice still rests on design-based acoustic snapshots, not on a fitted model, so it cannot directly deliver Management Units scale reference points (and trigger levels by MU).
- Fishing effort, surveys and predator foraging all operate at different, mismatched spatial scales within 48.1, exactly what WG-EMM/WG-SAM and SKEG flag as the core uncertainty
- Movement between strata (retention vs. flux) is currently only an expert-consensus schematic like SKEG/KSH and WG-EMM-2024/39 qualitative and recently WS-48-2-2026/06 and Sharma et al 2026 and Cutter et al 2022 quantitative not a fitted, data-updatable structure
- No current krill assessment for 48.1 estimates biomass- and F-based reference points at Management-Unit scale, nor updates them annually as new data arrive
- This is the gap my thesis and KSMI are built to close
The idea: connectivity + expert judgment
SKEG retention–flux schematic for 48.1 (WG-EMM-2024/39) — used as the prior on the movement matrix
Independent validation: Lagrangian-derived subarea connectivity matrix, Sharma et al. 2026 (GCB Communications)
Approach: combine the expert-elicited movement prior (SKEG/KSH) with data-derived connectivity matrices (particle-tracking/oceanography, e.g. Piñones et al. 2026) and acoustic/CEMP inputs, feeding a movement-capable spatial assessment (SS3 multi-area / state-space Bayesian model) — testing nested hypotheses (closed population → independent strata → connected via movement).
Funding search: what’s available so far
To keep this line of work moving (CCAMLR WGs and peer-reviewed output ) We are pursuing external funding matched to it:
CCAMLR CEMP Special Fund — best fit: priority (ii), “research that will also inform CCAMLR’s feedback management system for the krill fishery” (KSMI’s movement-capable assessment directly feeds Management-Unit-scale feedback advice, using CEMP predator data as a model input — priority (i), predator life-history monitoring, is a secondary, supporting fit)
Circular in July; deadline 31 Aug each year
Antarctic Wildlife Research Fund (AWR) — best fit: Focus 1, “Krill biology and ecology to inform krill fishery management” (connectivity, stock hypothesis, spatial/temporal management scale, recruitment contribution from Weddell/Bellingshausen to the Peninsula — matches this work directly)
Annual call; 11th Call closed 11 Apr 2025 (next call ~April)
Both funds average ~2 years of support. Intended use: research stays / secondments, participation in CCAMLR Working Groups to present results, and publication costs in indexed journals.
Draft KSMI proposal already adapted for CEMP Special Fund format; AWR version (Focus 1) pending. I’ll keep tracking new circulars.
What I need from you
- Your opinion on the project’s overall pertinence — and whether the angle should shift given your own expertise
- Any oceanographic/connectivity data or contacts for Area 48 that could sharpen the movement matrix beyond the qualitative SKEG schematic
- Willingness to be listed as collaborator / letter of support for CEMP Special Fund and/or AWR applications
- Any funding calls related to this proposal that I may be missing