From 1 - 10 / 15
  • This map shows the distribution and abundance of harbour seals across the Baltic Sea. The map was originally created for HELCOM Red list assessment of the Baltic Sea, using seal expert consultation. For the Baltic Sea Impact Index, the map was modified to represent four abundance classes, based on expert consultation. The map has been updated from the 1st version of HOLASII, based on expert consultation (HELCOM Seal EG).

  • Spawning area of cod in the Baltic Sea. The delineation of the spawning area is mainly based on Hüssy 2011. In addition, Gdansk deep (delineation based on Bagge et al. 1994) is included in the map, as it still sometimes contributes to reproduction of eastern Baltic cod stock ((Hinrichsen et al. 2016). Gotland basin has ceased to contribute to the reproduction of the Eastern Baltic cod due to oxygen deficiency and sedimentation related mortality (Hinrichsen et al. 2016).

  • Distribution of Fucus sp. based on data submission by HELCOM contracting parties. Mainly pointwise occurrences of Fucus were submitted, originally gathered in national mapping and monitoring campaigns, or for scientific research purposes. From Estonian waters, a predictive model was used (200m resolution), that was converted to presence/absence using minimized difference threshold (MDT) criteria. All data (Fucus points and the raster presenting predicted presence of Fucus) were generalized to 5km x 5km grid cells.

  • The occurrence of suitable nursery habitats is crucial for maintaining fish populations (Sundblad et al. 2013). For perch, species distribution modelling studies (Snickars et al. 2010, Bergström et al. 2013, Sundblad et al. 2013) have shown the importance of suitable environmental conditions for reproduction. Due to lack of coherent data on perch spawning and nursery areas across the Baltic Sea countries, environmental variables were used in delineating potential recruitment areas for perch. The distribution area or perch recruitment is delineated by selecting areas where depth < 4 m (For Danish waters < 3 m), logged exposure < 5 (exposure model described in Isæus 2004), and salinity < 10 PSU. The threshold values have been obtained from literature (Snickars et al. 2010, Bergström et al. 2013, Skovrind et al. 2013, Sundblad et al. 2013). Relatively “loose” thresholds have been used, to rather overestimate than underestimate the recruitment area (precautionary approach). Along the Finnish coastline a national model has been used (Kallasvuo et al. 2016), with suitable environments for perch recruitment generalized to 1 km x 1 km grid.

  • The occurrence of suitable nursery habitats is crucial for maintaining fish populations (Sundblad et al. 2013). Species distribution modelling studies have shown the importance of suitable environmental conditions for pikeperch recruitment. Due to lack of coherent data on pikeperch spawning and nursery areas across the Baltic Sea countries, environmental variables were used in delineating potential recruitment areas for pikeperch. The pikeperch recruitment area presented on the map is mainly delineated by selecting areas where depth < 5 m, logged exposure < 5, salinity < 7 PSU, Secchi depth < 2 m and distance to deep (10m) water < 4km. The threshold values have been obtained from literature (Veneranta et al. 2011, Bergström et al. 2013, Sundblad et al. 2013, Kallasvuo et al. 2016). Temperature, although important for pikeperch, was left out due to high variation in timing of suitable spawning temperatures across the Baltic Sea. In Finnish coastal waters, a national pikeperch model (Kallasvuo et al. 2016) has been used, with very suitable areas for pikeperch generalized to 1 km grid. In Sweden, the areas delineated by environmental variables have been complemented with information from national interview survey (Gunnartz et al. 2011) as well as expert opinion.

  • The map of herring relative abundance is mainly based on Baltic International acoustic surveys (BIAS), years 2011-2016 (ICES WGBIFS reports), reported as millions of herring / ICES rectangle. Also herring landings data were used to complement the data. For ICES rectangles surveyed by BIAS, values shown are the mean values per ICES rectangle based on BIAS data, average for 2011-2016. For ICES rectangles not surveyed by BIAS, values are calculated as: MAX-value x Weighting factor. The weighting factor is specific to each ICES rectangle, calculated as the ratio between the commercial landings in that rectangle and the commercial landings in the ICES rectangle with highest landings (based on averages for 2011-2016). MAX-value = millions of herring according to BIAS in the ICES rectangle with highest landings. ICES rectangles outside the BIAS survey area with no reported herring landings were given the value 0. The relative abundance values in each ICES rectangle were divided by the area of the rectangle to obtain values per 1km2. If the values in small coastal ICES rectangles (outside BIAS area) became unrealistically large due to high herring landings, the value of the neighboring rectangle was given. The final layer was converted to 1 km x 1km grid cells. Values were first log transformed and normalized.

  • Baltic International Trawl Survey (BITS) data (2011-2016) from ICES DATRAS database was used as a base to create a map of cod relative abundance (quarter 1 data, CPUE values per ICES subdivision). Cod = 30cm was included. For ICES rectangles surveyed by BITS, values shown are the mean CPUE per ICES subdivision based on BITS data, average for 2011-2016. For ICES rectangles not surveyed by BITS, values are calculated as: MAX-value x Weighting factor. The weighting factor is specific to each ICES rectangle, calculated as the ratio between the commercial landings in that rectangle and the commercial landings in the ICES rectangle with highest landings (based on averages for 2011-2016). MAX-value = CPUE according to BITS in the ICES rectangle with highest landings. ICES rectangles outside the BITS survey area with no reported cod landings were given the value 0. Values were first log transformed and then normalized.

  • This map shows the distribution and abundance of harbour porpoise across the Baltic Sea. The abundance of harbour porpoise is presented using 4 abundance classes. The classification is based on expert consultation and information from scientific literature (e.g. Sveegaard et al. 2011, Viquerat et al. 2014). The class borders are defined by expert opinion and generalizing the data gathered and modelled in SAMBAH project. For the Baltic Proper the SAMBAH results have been used to delineate the class borders: 20% probability of detection during May-October has been used to define the area of “common occurrence and reproduction”, and the 20% probability of detection during November-April has been used to define the “regular occurrence, no regular reproduction” area. Please note: The applied spatial scale includes lagoons and estuaries of the inner coastal waters (e.g. Szczecin Lagoon, Jasmund lagoon) where harbour porpoises do not or only exceptionally occur unlike the map suggests.

  • This map shows the distribution and abundance of grey seals across the Baltic Sea. The map was originally created for HELCOM Red list assessment of the Baltic Sea, using seal expert consultation. For the Baltic Sea Impact Index, the map was modified to represent four abundance classes, based on expert consultation. The map has been updated from the 1st version of HOLASII, based on expert consultation (HELCOM Seal EG).

  • This map shows the distribution and abundance of ringed seals across the Baltic Sea. The map was originally created for HELCOM Red list assessment of the Baltic Sea, using seal expert consultation. For the Baltic Sea Impact Index, the map was modified to represent four abundance classes, based on expert consultation. The map has been updated from the 1st version of HOLASII, based on expert consultation (HELCOM Seal EG).