+ - 0:00:00
Notes for current slide
Notes for next slide

There is no I in EAFM:

Adapting Integrated Ecosystem Assessment
for Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management

Sarah Gaichas, Geret DePiper, Brandon Muffley, Richard Seagraves, Sean Lucey
Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council

1 / 32

An integrated ecosystem assessment success story (in progress)

Diverse stakeholders agreed that an ecosystem approach was necessary. Developing and implementing an ecosystem approach to fishery management was done in collaboration between managers, stakeholders, and scientists.

Outline

  • Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Ecosystem Approach (EAFM)

  • Tailoring ecosystem reporting for fishery managers

  • Mid-Atlantic EAFM risk assessment

  • Mid-Atlantic EAFM conceptual modeling (towards MSE)

  • Improvements: open-source data and technical documentation

Integrated Ecosystem Assessment

IEA process from goal setting to assessment to strategy evaluation with feedbacks

https://www.integratedecosystemassessment.noaa.gov/national/IEA-approach

2 / 32

Fishery management in the US

Eight regional Fishery Management Councils establish plans for sustainable management of stocks within their jurisdictions. All are governed by the same law, but tailor management to their regional stakeholder needs.

US map highlighting regions for each fishery management council

More information: http://www.fisherycouncils.org/ https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/laws-policies#magnuson-stevens-act

3 / 32

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC)

US East Coast map highlighting Mid-Atlantic council jurisdiction

MAFMC fishery management plans and species

Source: http://www.mafmc.org/fishery-management-plans
4 / 32

Why an ecosystem approach?

"We rebuilt all the stocks, so why is everyone still pissed off?" --Rich Seagraves

in 2011, the Council asked:

visioning project goals and objectives

visioning project responses and port meetings

And many people answered, from commercial fishery, recreational fishery, environmental organization, and interested public perspectives.

Visioning report:

http://www.mafmc.org/s/MAFMC-stakeholder-input-report-p7b9.pdf

5 / 32

Common themes among all stakeholder groups:

• There is a lack of confidence in the data that drive fishery management decisions.

• Stakeholders are not as involved in the Council process as they can and should be.

• Different jurisdictions and regulations among the many fishery management organizations result in complexity and inconsistency.

• There is a need for increased transparency and communications in fisheries management.

• The dynamics of the ecosystem and food web should be considered to a greater extent in fisheries management decisions.

• Stakeholders are not adequately represented on the Council.

• Pollution is negatively affecting the health of fish stocks.

Visioning report, p. 3:

http://www.mafmc.org/s/MAFMC-stakeholder-input-report-p7b9.pdf

6 / 32

How did MAFMC develop their ecosystem approach?

Visioning Project → Strategic Plan with one objective to develop

"A non-regulatory umbrella document intended to guide Council policy with respect to ecosystem considerations across existing Fishery Management Plans"

Mid-Atlantic EAFM development with full details in speaker notes

Details, including workshop presentations and white papers: http://www.mafmc.org/eafm

7 / 32

The Mid-Atlantic Council identified several theme areas from the visioning project as noted in the left panel of the workflow graphic: forage fish, species interactions, social and economic issues, climate and habitat. The Council held full day workshops during Council meetings where experts on the topics provided overviews and Council members asked questions and discussed the issues. Workships on Forage fish, Climate, Climate and Governance, Interactions (species and fleet), and Habitat were held between 2013 and 2015, resulting in white papers on Forage fish, Climate (and habitat), Interactions (species, fleet, climate, and habitat). Social and economic considerations were integrated in each workshop rather than looked at separately.

Mid-Atlantic Council Ecosystem Approach

[1] Gaichas, S., Seagraves, R., Coakley, J., DePiper, G., Guida, V., Hare, J., Rago, P., et al. 2016. A Framework for Incorporating Species, Fleet, Habitat, and Climate Interactions into Fishery Management. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3.

8 / 32

The Council’s EAFM framework has similarities to the IEA loop on slide 2. It uses risk assessment as a first step to prioritize combinations of managed species, fleets, and ecosystem interactions for consideration. Second, a conceptual model is developed identifying key environmental, ecological, social, economic, and management linkages for a high-priority fishery. Third, quantitative modeling addressing Council-specified questions and based on interactions identified in the conceptual model is applied to evaluate alternative management strategies that best balance management objectives. As strategies are implemented, outcomes are monitored and the process is adjusted, and/or another priority identified in risk assessment can be addressed.

Examples illustrating the use of the framework

Example risk assessment table with species in rows and risk elements in columns with green cells indicating low risks, yellow and orange cells indicating moderate risks, and red cells indicatig high risk

Risk assessment highlights prority species/issues for more detailed evaluation

A conceptual model maps out key interactions for high risk fisheries, specifies quantitative management strategy evaluation

example conceptual model with details in speaker notes

9 / 32

Quoted from Gaichas et al 2016 For this example, the existing Mid Atlantic food web model is used to define key species interactions for each managed species, habitat expertise is needed to link habitats to species, physical oceanographic and climate expertise is needed to link key climate drivers to habitats, and the expertise of fishermen, economists and other social scientists, and fishery managers is needed to link fish with fisheries and objectives for human well-being. The key link between fisheries and human well being objectives is identified as the system of regulatory allocations of total allowable catch between states along the Mid Atlantic coast. The interaction between this allocation system (based on historical catch) and climate-driven distribution shifts of the managed species has created considerable difficulty in this region. This conceptual model clearly connects climate considerations to management, as well as habitat considerations of concern to the Council but outside Council jurisdiction (water quality in coastal estuaries).

Why risk assessment?

Common framework across industry, science, business; but methods matter. Assessing the risks correctly is essential to good decision making.

cartoon showing lightning strike conditional risk and incorrect calculation

https://xkcd.com/795/
10 / 32

Mid-Atlantic Council risk assessment framework

Clarify exactly what we are assessing and why

  • What are we measuring? → Risk Element
  • Why are we measuring it? → Risk Definition
  • How are we measuring it? → Indicator
  • What is the risk? → Risk Ranking Criteria

Iterative process starting with the Council workshops

  • Council staff and scientists create examples based on Council input

    ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ...

  • Council discusses, clarifies, revises with public input

Risk assessment paper1: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00442/full

[1] Gaichas, S. K., DePiper, G. S., Seagraves, R. J., Muffley, B. W., Sabo, M., Colburn, L. L., and Loftus, A. L. 2018. Implementing Ecosystem Approaches to Fishery Management: Risk Assessment in the US Mid-Atlantic. Frontiers in Marine Science, 5.

11 / 32

Council-defined risk elements: Ecological

Element Definition Indicators
Ecological
Assessment performance Risk of not achieving OY due to analytical limitations Current assessment method/data quality
F status Risk of not achieving OY due to overfishing Current F relative to reference F from assessment
B status Risk of not achieving OY due to depleted stock Current B relative to reference B from assessment
Food web (MAFMC Predator) Risk of not achieving OY due to MAFMC managed species interactions Diet composition, management measures
Food web (MAFMC Prey) Risk of not achieving OY due to MAFMC managed species interactions Diet composition, management measures
Food web (Protected Species Prey) Risk of not achieving protected species objectives due to species interactions Diet composition, management measures
Ecosystem productivity Risk of not achieving OY due to changing system productivity Four indicators, see text
Climate Risk of not achieving OY due to climate vulnerability Northeast Climate Vulnerability Assessment
Distribution shifts Risk of not achieving OY due to climate-driven distribution shifts Northeast Climate Vulnerability Assessment + 2 indicators
Estuarine habitat Risk of not achieving OY due to threats to estuarine/nursery habitat Enumerated threats + estuarine dependence
Offshore habitat Risk of not achieving OY due to changing offshore habitat Integrated habitat model index
12 / 32

Risk elements: Economic, Social, and Food Production

Element Definition Indicators
Economic
Commercial Revenue Risk of not maximizing fishery value Revenue in aggregate
Recreational Angler Days/Trips Risk of not maximizing fishery value Numbers of anglers and trips in aggregate
Commercial Fishery Resilience (Revenue Diversity) Risk of reduced fishery business resilience Species diversity of revenue
Commercial Fishery Resilience (Shoreside Support) Risk of reduced fishery business resilience due to shoreside support infrastructure Number of shoreside support businesses
Social
Fleet Resilience Risk of reduced fishery resilience Number of fleets, fleet diversity
Social-Cultural Risk of reduced community resilience Community vulnerability, fishery engagement and reliance
Food Production
Commercial Risk of not optimizing seafood production Seafood landings in aggregate
Recreational Risk of not maintaining personal food production Recreational landings in aggregate
13 / 32

Risk elements: Management

Element Definition Indicators
Management
Control Risk of not achieving OY due to inadequate control Catch compared to allocation
Interactions Risk of not achieving OY due to interactions with species managed by other entities Number and type of interactions with protected or non-MAFMC managed species, co-management
Other ocean uses Risk of not achieving OY due to other human uses Fishery overlap with energy/mining areas
Regulatory complexity Risk of not achieving compliance due to complexity Number of regulations by species
Discards Risk of not minimizing bycatch to extent practicable Standardized Bycatch Reporting
Allocation Risk of not achieving OY due to spatial mismatch of stocks and management Distribution shifts + number of interests
14 / 32

But where will the risk assessment indicators come from?

15 / 32

Meanwhile, scientists were improving ecosystem reports:

"So what?" --John Boreman, September 2016

  1. Clear linkage of ecosystem indicators with management objectives

  2. Synthesis across indicators for big picture

  3. Objectives related to human-well being placed first in report

  4. Short (< 30 pages), non-technical (but rigorous) text

  5. Emphasis on reproducibility

    scaled down conceptual model detailed in speaker notes

16 / 32

State of the ecosystem reports were revised to emphasize linkages between management objectives, local social systems, human activities, marine habitat, the environment, and the marine ecological community.

Revised ecosystem status reporting

Report structure

  1. Synthetic overview

  2. Human dimensions

  3. Protected species

  4. Fish and invertebrates (managed and otherwise)

  5. Habitat quality and ecosystem productivity

Ecosystem-scale objectives and indicators on the Northeast US shelf
Objective Categories Indicators
Seafood Production Landings by feeding guild
Profits Revenue by feeding guild
Recreation Number of anglers and trips; recreational catch
Stability Diversity indices (fishery and species)
Social & Cultural Commercial and recreational reliance
Biomass Biomass or abundance by feeding guild from surveys
Productivity Condition and recruitment of managed species
Trophic structure Relative biomass of feeding guilds, primary productivity
Habitat Estuarine and offshore habitat conditions
17 / 32

Standardized indicator visualization in reports

Status (short-term) and trend (long-term) of components are measured as indicators and plotted in a standardized way

Indicators are selected to

  1. Be broadly informative about a component in a management context1-3

  2. Minimize redundancy of information

  3. Be responsive to ecosystem change

plot in standard reporting format described in speaker notes

[1] Rice J. C.Rochet M. J. "A framework for selecting a suite of indicators for fisheries management." ICES Journal of Marine Science 62 (2005): 516–527.
[2] Link J. 2010. Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management: Confronting Tradeoffs . Cambridge University Press, New York.
[3] Zador, Stephani G., et al. "Ecosystem considerations in Alaska: the value of qualitative assessments." ICES Journal of Marine Science 74.1 (2017): 421-430.

18 / 32

The figure format is illustrated here. Trend lines are shown when slope is significantly different from 0 at the p < 0.05 level. An orange line signifies an overall positive trend, and purple signifies a negative trend. To minimize bias introduced by small sample size, no trend is fit for < 30 year time series. Dashed lines represent mean values of time series unless the indicator is an anomaly, in which case the dashed line is equal to 0. Shaded regions indicate the past ten years. If there are no new data for the most recent year, the shaded region will still cover this time period.

Indicator spatial scales--already Mid-Atlantic specific

map of Northeast US ecosystem production units

https://noaa-edab.github.io/tech-doc/epu.html

19 / 32

Indicators

Risk assessent indicators and ranking criteria: Commercial revenue

This element is applied at the ecosystem level. Revenue serves as a proxy for commercial profits.

Risk Level Definition
Low No trend and low variability in revenue
Low-Moderate Increasing or high variability in revenue
Moderate-High Significant long term revenue decrease
High Significant recent decrease in revenue

Ranked moderate-high risk due to the significant long term revenue decrease for Mid-Atlantic managed species (red points in top plot)

20 / 32

Risk assessent indicators and ranking criteria: System productivity

This element is applied at the ecosystem level, and ranks the risk of not achieving optimum yield due to changes in ecosystem productivity at the base of the food web.

Four indicators are used together to assess risk of changing ecosystem productivity: primary production, zooplankton abundance, fish condition and fish recruitment.

Risk Level Definition
Low No trends in ecosystem productivity
Low-Moderate Trend in ecosystem productivity (1-2 measures, increase or decrease)
Moderate-High Trend in ecosystem productivity (3+ measures, increase or decrease)
High Decreasing trend in ecosystem productivity, all measures
21 / 32

We examine trends in total primary production, zooplankton abundance for a key Mid-Atlantic species, and two aggregate fish productivity measures: condition factor (weight divided by length of individual fish) and a survey based "recruitment" (small fish to large fish) index.

Risk assessent indicators and ranking criteria: System productivity

fish condition 1992 to 2018 where dark is good condition and light is poor

Ranked low-moderate risk due to the significant long term trends in zooplankton abundance for major species (top right plot)

22 / 32

Risk assessent indicators and ranking criteria: Climate

This element is applied at the species level. Risks to species productivity (and therefore to achieving optimum yield) due to projected climate change in the Northeast US were evaluated in a comprehensive assessment1.

Risk Level Definition
Low Low climate vulnerability ranking
Low-Moderate Moderate climate vulnerability ranking
Moderate-High High climate vulnerability ranking
High Very high climate vulnerability ranking

climate vulnerability levels for all Northeast US marine species

[1] Hare, J. A., Morrison, W. E., Nelson, M. W., Stachura, M. M., Teeters, E. J., Griffis, R. B., Alexander, M. A., et al. 2016. A Vulnerability Assessment of Fish and Invertebrates to Climate Change on the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. PLOS ONE, 11: e0146756. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146756.

Each species ranked according to position/color in the plot on the right

23 / 32

Risk assessment results: Species and sector level elements1

Species MgtControl TecInteract OceanUse RegComplex Discards Allocation
Ocean Quahog-C lowest lowest lowmod lowest lowest lowest
Surfclam-C lowest lowest lowmod lowest lowest lowest
Summer flounder-R modhigh lowest lowmod highest highest highest
Summer flounder-C lowmod modhigh lowmod modhigh lowmod highest
Scup-R lowest lowest lowmod modhigh modhigh lowest
Scup-C lowest modhigh lowmod modhigh modhigh lowest
Black sea bass-R highest lowest modhigh highest modhigh highest
Black sea bass-C lowmod lowmod highest modhigh lowmod highest
Atl. mackerel-R lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest highest
Atl. mackerel-C lowest lowmod modhigh highest lowmod highest
Butterfish-C lowest lowmod modhigh highest modhigh lowest
Longfin squid-C lowest modhigh highest highest highest highest
Shortfin squid-C lowest lowmod lowmod lowmod lowest lowest
Golden tilefish-R na lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest
Golden tilefish-C lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest
Blueline tilefish-R lowest lowest lowest modhigh lowest highest
Blueline tilefish-C lowest lowest lowest modhigh lowest highest
Bluefish-R lowmod lowest lowest lowest modhigh highest
Bluefish-C lowest lowest lowmod lowmod lowmod highest
Spiny dogfish-R lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest
Spiny dogfish-C lowest modhigh modhigh modhigh lowmod highest
Unmanaged forage na na na na na na
Deepsea corals na na modhigh na na na

[1] Gaichas, S. K., DePiper, G. S., Seagraves, R. J., Muffley, B. W., Sabo, M., Colburn, L. L., and Loftus, A. L. 2018. Implementing Ecosystem Approaches to Fishery Management: Risk Assessment in the US Mid-Atlantic. Frontiers in Marine Science, 5.

24 / 32

Risk assessment results updated with 2019 indicators

Species level risk elements

Species Assess Fstatus Bstatus FW1Pred FW1Prey FW2Prey Climate DistShift EstHabitat
Ocean Quahog lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest highest modhigh lowest
Surfclam lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest modhigh modhigh lowest
Summer flounder lowest lowest lowmod lowest lowest lowest lowmod modhigh highest
Scup lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest lowmod modhigh highest
Black sea bass lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest modhigh modhigh highest
Atl. mackerel lowest highest highest lowest lowest lowest lowmod modhigh lowest
Butterfish lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest highest lowest
Longfin squid lowmod lowmod lowmod lowest lowest lowmod lowest modhigh lowest
Shortfin squid lowmod lowmod lowmod lowest lowest lowmod lowest highest lowest
Golden tilefish lowest lowest lowmod lowest lowest lowest modhigh lowest lowest
Blueline tilefish highest highest modhigh lowest lowest lowest modhigh lowest lowest
Bluefish lowest lowest lowmod lowest lowest lowest lowest modhigh highest
Spiny dogfish lowmod lowest lowmod lowest lowest lowest lowest highest lowest
Monkfish highest lowmod lowmod lowest lowest lowest lowest modhigh lowest
Unmanaged forage na na na lowest lowmod lowmod na na na
Deepsea corals na na na lowest lowest lowest na na na

Ecosystem level risk elements

System EcoProd CommRev RecVal FishRes1 FishRes4 FleetDiv Social ComFood RecFood
Mid-Atlantic lowmod modhigh highest lowest modhigh lowest lowmod highest modhigh
25 / 32

How is MAFMC using the risk assessment? What's next?

  • Based on risk assessment, the Council selected summer flounder as high-risk fishery for conceptual modeling

Mid-Atlantic EAFM framework

  • Working group of habitat, biology, stock assessment, management, economic and social scientists developed:

    • draft conceptual models of high risk elements, linkages
    • dataset identification and gap analysis for each element and link
    • draft questions that the Council could persue with additional work

  • Final conceptual model and supporting information at December 2019 Council meeting

  • Council to proceed with management strategy evaluation (MSE) using the information from conceptual modeling as a basis. Topic: addressing recreational fishery discards with EAFM

26 / 32
Community VulnerabilityDissolved OxygenEconomic DriversFreshwater InfluxNutrient InfluxOcean AcidificationOcean FeaturesOceanographic TransportOffshore WindOther Species Distributional ShiftsShifts in PreferencesTemperatureWater DiversionComplianceFishery Distributional ShiftFleet DiversityPerceived InequityShoreside SupportTechnical InteractionsTotal DiscardsTotal LandingsAllocationCommunicationEnforcementManagement ControlOther RegulationsPermit AccessRegulatory ComplexityRisk BufferingAdults & SpawnersAge & Size StructureFluke Distributional ShiftFluke RecruitmentFluke SSBGrowthMaturationNatural MortalitySex RatioAssessment ProcessData QualityRec. Fishing PredictabilityStock AssessmentAquatic VegetationEstuarine HabitatFood Web ChangesHabitat AlterationHabitat DisturbanceLoose Inert SubstrateOffshore HabitatSalinityWater ClarityCommercial ProfitsConsumer SurplusRec. Business ProfitsRecreational ValueSeafood ProductionProtected Species
27 / 32

In this interactive circular graph visualization, model elements identified as important by the Council (through risk assessment) and by the working group (through a range of experience and expertise) are at the perimeter of the circle. Elements are defined in detail in the last section of this page. Relationships between elements are represented as links across the center of the circle to other elements on the perimeter. Links from a model element that affect another element start wide at the base and are color coded to match the category of the element they affect.Hover over a perimeter section (an element) to see all relationships for that element, including links from other elements. Hover over a link to see what it connects. Links by default show text for the two elements and the direction of the relationship (1 for relationship, 0 for no relationship--most links are one direction).For example, hovering over the element "Total Landings" in the full model shows that the working group identified the elements affected by landings as Seafood Production, Recreational Value, and Commercial Profits (three links leading out from landings), and the elements affecting landings as Fluke SSB, Fluke Distributional Shift, Risk Buffering, Management Control, Total Discards, and Shoreside Support (6 links leading into Total Landings).

Conclusions

Integrated ecosystem assessment is a valuable framework for the general implementation of ecosystem approaches to natural resource management

  • The Council’s rapid progress in implementing EAFM resulted from positive collaboration between managers, stakeholders, and scientists. Collaboration is essential to IEA and to the success of EAFM.

  • Ecosystem indicators and reporting can be tailored to specific regional objectives.

  • Risk assessment is a rapid, familiar, scaleable, and transparent method to move forward with EAFM within a real-world operational fishery management context.

  • This EAFM process highlights certain species and certain management issues as posing higher cumulative risks to meeting Council-derived management objectives when considering a broad range of ecological, social, and economic factors.

  • Conceptual modeling links the key factors for high risk fisheries and scopes more detailed integrated analysis and management strategy evaluation.

28 / 32

The Council foresees refining the process so that ecosystem indicators monitor risks to achieving ecological, social, and economic fishery objectives, which can then be mitigated through management action.

Footnote: Improvements to reproducibility and provenance

  • Reporting the information is not enough
  • Managers appreciate the concise format, but back-end critical for describing collection, analyses, and processing
  • Streamlined workflow allowed scientists to meet management deadlines

soe-data-flow

29 / 32

This workflows also ensures that there's no information lost between SOE cycles. We know exactly how a data set was analyzed and handled so that the data can be updated for next year's reports.

If you want all the details

30 / 32

Contributors - THANK YOU!

The New England and Mid-Atlantic Ecosystem reports made possible by (at least) 38 contributors from 8 institutions

Donald Anderson (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute)
Amani Bassyouni (Virginia Department of Health)
Lisa Calvo (Rutgers)
Matthew Camisa (MA Division of Marine Fisheries)
Patricia Clay
Lisa Colburn
Geret DePiper
Deb Duarte
Michael Fogarty
Paula Fratantoni
Kevin Friedland
Sarah Gaichas
James Gartland (Virginia Institute of Marine Science)
Heather Haas
Sean Hardison
Kimberly Hyde
Terry Joyce (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute)
John Kosik
Steve Kress (National Audubon Society)
Scott Large

Don Lyons (National Audubon Society)
Loren Kellogg
David Kulis (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute)
Sean Lucey
Chris Melrose
Ryan Morse
Kimberly Murray
Chris Orphanides
Richard Pace
Charles Perretti
Karl Roscher (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)
Vincent Saba
Laurel Smith
Mark Terceiro
John Walden
Harvey Walsh
Mark Wuenschel
Qian Zhang (Unversity of Maryland and US EPA Chesapeake Bay Program)

NOAA Fisheries IEA logo

31 / 32

Questions? Thank you!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contacts:

sarah.gaichas@noaa.gov
geret.depiper@noaa.gov
bmuffley@mafmc.org
sean.lucey@noaa.gov

32 / 32

An integrated ecosystem assessment success story (in progress)

Diverse stakeholders agreed that an ecosystem approach was necessary. Developing and implementing an ecosystem approach to fishery management was done in collaboration between managers, stakeholders, and scientists.

Outline

  • Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Ecosystem Approach (EAFM)

  • Tailoring ecosystem reporting for fishery managers

  • Mid-Atlantic EAFM risk assessment

  • Mid-Atlantic EAFM conceptual modeling (towards MSE)

  • Improvements: open-source data and technical documentation

Integrated Ecosystem Assessment

IEA process from goal setting to assessment to strategy evaluation with feedbacks

https://www.integratedecosystemassessment.noaa.gov/national/IEA-approach

2 / 32
Paused

Help

Keyboard shortcuts

↑, ←, Pg Up, k Go to previous slide
↓, →, Pg Dn, Space, j Go to next slide
Home Go to first slide
End Go to last slide
Number + Return Go to specific slide
b / m / f Toggle blackout / mirrored / fullscreen mode
c Clone slideshow
p Toggle presenter mode
t Restart the presentation timer
?, h Toggle this help
Esc Back to slideshow