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

an iterative, collaborative process has evolved to formulate ecosystem advice and to apply it in decision making

Ecosystem reporting applications
in fishery management:

Examples from the Mid-Atlantic
04 August 2021

Sarah Gaichas
Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Brandon Muffley
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council

Many thanks to:
Kimberly Bastille, Geret DePiper, Kimberly Hyde, Scott Large, Sean Lucey,
and all SOE contributors

1 / 28

Ecosystem reporting used in management processes

  • Ecosystem reporting linked to management objectives

    • Open science emphasis (Bastille, et al., 2020)
    • Report evolving since 2016
    • Fishery-relevant subset of full Ecosystem Status Reports

  • Used within Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Ecosystem Process (Muffley, et al., 2020)

  • Collaborative process key to getting information used

SOE cover page 2021

2 / 28

an iterative, collaborative process has evolved to formulate ecosystem advice and to apply it in decision making

State of the Ecosystem (SOE) Reporting: Context for busy people

"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

3 / 28

In 2016, we began taking steps to address these common critiques of the ESR model Many indicators presented at WGNARS, used in larger Ecosystem Status reports Shorter, fishery specific State of the Ecosystem (SOE) report with conceptual models prototyped based on California Current reporting Feedback from fishery managers redesigned reporting to align with objectives outlined by WGNARS

2021 Report: Summary

State of the Ecosystem page 1 summary table

State of the Ecosystem page 2 risk bullets

4 / 28

cover, 3 pager with visualizations, 34 pages of narrative/plots, 1 page contributors, 1 page orientation, 2 pages references

Revised structure to address Council requests and improve synthesis

  • Performance relative to management objectives
    • What does the indicator say--up, down, stable?
    • Why do we think it is changing: integrates synthesis themes
      • Multiple drivers
      • Regime shifts
      • Ecosystem reorganization
  • Objectives
    • Seafood production
    • Profits
    • Recreational opportunities
    • Stability
    • Social and cultural
    • Protected species
  • Risks to meeting fishery management objectives
    • What does the indicator say--up, down, stable?
    • Why this is important to managers: integrates synthesis themes
      • Multiple drivers
      • Regime shifts
      • Ecosystem reorganization
  • Risk categories
    • Climate: warming, ocean currents, acidification
      • Habitat changes (incl. vulnerability analysis)
      • Productivity changes (system and fish)
      • Species interaction changes
      • Community structure changes
    • Other ocean uses
      • Offshore wind development
5 / 28

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC)

US East Coast map highlighting Mid-Atlantic council jurisdiction

MAFMC fishery management plans and species

6 / 28

Mid-Atlantic Council Ecosystem Approach

7 / 28

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.

Iterative, collaborative development of the risk assessment

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

  • Council staff and scientists create examples based on Council input

    ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ...

  • Council discusses, clarifies, revises with public input

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
8 / 28

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
9 / 28

State of the Ecosystem → Risk assessent example: 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)

Key: Black = Revenue of all species combined;

Red = Revenue of MAFMC managed species

10 / 28

State of the Ecosystem → Risk assessent example: 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)

Key: Black = Revenue of all species combined;

Red = Revenue of MAFMC managed species

Risk element: CommRev, unchanged

10 / 28

Performance relative to management objectives

Fishing icon made by EDAB       Fishing industry icon made by EDAB       Multiple drivers icon made by EDAB       Spiritual cultural icon made by EDAB       Protected species icon made by EDAB

11 / 28

Objective: Seafood production decreasing arrow icon below average icon icon   Risk elements: ComFood and RecFood, unchanged

Indicators: Commercial and recreational landings

Key: Black = Landings of all species combined;

Red = Landings of MAFMC managed species

Multiple drivers: ecosystem and stock production, management, market conditions, and environment

Is biomass driving?

Key: Black = NEFSC survey;

Red = NEAMAP survey

12 / 28

Landings drivers: Ecosystem or stock production?   Risk elements: Fstatus, Bstatus mostly unchanged

Key: Orange background = Tipping point overfishing threshold, Link and Watson 2019 Green background = Optimal range, Link and Watson 2019

One change: Butterfish Bstatus

13 / 28

Implications: Seafood Production

Key: Black = Landings of all species combined;

Red = Landings of MAFMC managed species

Drivers:

  • market dynamics affecting commercial landings of surfclams and ocean quahogs

  • other drivers affecting recreational landings: shark fishery management, possibly survey methodology

Monitor:

  • climate risks including warming, ocean acidification, and shifting distributions
  • ecosystem composition and production changes
  • fishing engagement
14 / 28

Because ecosystem overfishing seems unlikely, stock status is mostly acceptable, and aggregate biomass trends appear stable, the decline in commercial landings is most likely driven by market dynamics affecting the landings of surfclams and ocean quahogs, as quotas are not binding for these species.

Climate change also seems to be shifting the distribution of surfclams and ocean quahogs, resulting in areas with overlapping distributions and increased mixed landings. Given the regulations governing mixed landings, this could become problematic in the future and is currently being evaluated by the Council.

Risks to meeting fishery management objectives

Climate icon made by EDAB       Wind icon made by EDAB

Hydrography icon made by EDAB       Phytoplankon icon made by EDAB       Forage fish icon made by EDAB       Apex predators icon made by EDAB       Other human uses icon made by EDAB

15 / 28

EAFM Risk Assessment: 2021 Update

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 lowmod 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 highest 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
  • Butterfish B status risk increased from lowest to low-mod (below Bmsy)

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

Species and Sector level risk elements

Species MgtControl TecInteract OceanUse RegComplex Discards Allocation
Ocean Quahog-C lowest lowest lowmod lowest modhigh lowest
Surfclam-C lowest lowest lowmod lowest modhigh lowest
Summer flounder-R modhigh lowest lowmod modhigh highest highest
Summer flounder-C lowmod modhigh lowmod modhigh modhigh highest
Scup-R lowmod lowest lowmod modhigh modhigh highest
Scup-C lowest lowmod modhigh modhigh modhigh highest
Black sea bass-R highest lowest modhigh modhigh highest highest
Black sea bass-C highest lowmod highest modhigh highest highest
Atl. mackerel-R lowmod lowest lowest lowest lowest lowest
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 lowest
Shortfin squid-C lowmod 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 lowmod 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 lowest
Chub mackerel-C lowest lowmod lowmod lowmod lowest lowest
Unmanaged forage lowest lowest modhigh lowest lowest lowest
Deepsea corals na na modhigh na na na
  • Allocation risk decreased for 4 fisheries from high to low (intermediate rankings not applied)
  • Black sea bass regulatory complexity risk decreased from highest to mod-high
16 / 28

Changes: Butterfish B status risk increased from lowest to low-mod (below Bmsy) Allocation risk decreased for 4 fisheries from high to low (intermediate rankings not applied) Black sea bass regulatory complexity risk decreased from highest to moderate-high

Potential new indicators from new SOE sections on climate risk, habitat vulnerability, offshore wind

Habitat vulnerability analysis writeups--comments?

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, (DePiper, et al., 2021)

  • Council proceeding with management strategy evaluation (MSE) using the information from conceptual modeling as a basis. Topic: addressing recreational fishery discards with EAFM
17 / 28
18 / 28

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).

Council-selected management question:

Evaluate the biological and economic benefits of minimizing summer flounder discards and converting discards into landings in the recreational sector. Identify management strategies to effectively realize these benefits.

  • Opportunity to align EAFM work with traditional Council process
  • Management challenges to address and reduce regulatory discards
    • 90% of rec summer flounder catch is released
  • Raised by AP members and stakeholders seeking management to address
  • EAFM issue and focus – seven linked categories: Management, Summer Flounder Stock, Science, Fishing Fleets, and Benefits

screen shot of summer flounder conceptual model with discards highlighted color categories for conceptual model

19 / 28

Conclusions

  • The process takes time – need to recognize that early and be willing to invest the resources to see it through

    • Need the science to develop and support efforts
    • Need management (and stakeholders) to understand process and concepts and support process

  • Collaboration is key

    • Within the science community – diverse expertise is needed
    • Between science and management – understanding what information is needed and important to management, providing tools to management to understand ecosystem linkages and implications
    • Between science and stakeholders – need to build trust, open dialogue (everyone is heard), and sharing data and observations (on water and with information)
    • Between management and stakeholders – listening to/acting on stakeholder priorities and feedback, process not out to add more uncertainty but provide for more informed decisions

  • Timely and understandable scientific information

    • Developing a process to create science products at timescales necessary for management
    • Information needs to be relevant and clearly presented
    • Flexibility to use different/alternative data sources when specific data in not available (proxies)
20 / 28

References

Bastille, K. et al. (2020). "Improving the IEA Approach Using Principles of Open Data Science". In: Coastal Management 0.0. Publisher: Taylor & Francis _ eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846155, pp. 1-18. ISSN: 0892-0753. DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2021.1846155. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846155 (visited on Dec. 09, 2020).

DePiper, G. et al. (2021). "Learning by doing: collaborative conceptual modelling as a path forward in ecosystem-based management". In: ICES Journal of Marine Science. ISSN: 1054-3139. DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsab054. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsab054 (visited on Apr. 15, 2021).

Gaichas, S. K. et al. (2018). "Implementing Ecosystem Approaches to Fishery Management: Risk Assessment in the US Mid-Atlantic". In: Frontiers in Marine Science 5. ISSN: 2296-7745. DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2018.00442. URL: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00442/abstract (visited on Nov. 20, 2018).

Gaichas, S. K. et al. (2016). "A Framework for Incorporating Species, Fleet, Habitat, and Climate Interactions into Fishery Management". In: Frontiers in Marine Science 3. ISSN: 2296-7745. DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00105. URL: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2016.00105/full (visited on Apr. 29, 2020).

Muffley, B. et al. (2020). "There Is no I in EAFM Adapting Integrated Ecosystem Assessment for Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management". In: Coastal Management 0.0. Publisher: Taylor & Francis _ eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846156, pp. 1-17. ISSN: 0892-0753. DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2021.1846156. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846156 (visited on Dec. 09, 2020).

Additional resources

21 / 28
22 / 28

State of the Ecosystem Report Structure

2020 Report

  1. Summary 2 pager
  2. Human dimensions
  3. Protected species
  4. Fish and invertebrates (managed and otherwise)
  5. Habitat quality and ecosystem productivity

2021 Report

  1. Graphical summary
    • Page 1 report card re: objectives →
    • Page 2 risk summary bullets
    • Page 3 synthesis themes
  2. Performance relative to management objectives
  3. Risks to meeting management objectives
Ecosystem-scale fishery management objectives
Objective Categories Indicators reported here
Provisioning and Cultural Services
Seafood Production Landings; commercial total and by feeding guild; recreational harvest
Profits Revenue decomposed to price and volume
Recreation Days fished; recreational fleet diversity
Stability Diversity indices (fishery and ecosystem)
Social & Cultural Community engagement/reliance status
Protected Species Bycatch; population (adult and juvenile) numbers, mortalities
Supporting and Regulating Services
Biomass Biomass or abundance by feeding guild from surveys
Productivity Condition and recruitment of managed species, Primary productivity
Trophic structure Relative biomass of feeding guilds, Zooplankton
Habitat Estuarine and offshore habitat conditions
23 / 28

Ecosystem synthesis themes for 2021

Characterizing ecosystem change for fishery management

  • Societal, biological, physical and chemical factors comprise the multiple system drivers that influence marine ecosystems through a variety of different pathways.
  • Changes in the multiple drivers can lead to regime shifts — large, abrupt and persistent changes in the structure and function of an ecosystem.
  • Regime shifts and changes in how the multiple system drivers interact can result in ecosystem reorganization as species and humans respond and adapt to the new environment.

24 / 28

Document Orientation

Spatial scale NEFSC survey strata used to calculate Ecosystem Production Unit biomass

A glossary of terms, detailed technical methods documentation and indicator data are available online.

Key to figures

Trends assessed only for 30+ years: more information

Orange line = significant increase

Purple line = significant decrease

No color line = not significant or < 30 years

Grey background = last 10 years

25 / 28

Continuing dialogue with managers shapes report and indicators presented each year: 2021 Requests

Request Year Source Progress Memo Section
Report card and summary visualizations 2019 Both Councils SOE new report card table and summary visualizaitions of synthesis themes 1
Ecosystem Overfishing indicators (Link and Watson, 2019) 2020 Both Councils SOE two ecosystem overfishing indicators included 2
Primary production required, interpretation of decline? 2020 Both Councils SOE indicator reworked along with Link and Watson metrics 3
Climate Change context 2020 NEFMC SOE reorganized; Risks section added emphasizing climate change 4
Clarify language (e.g., primary production required) 2020 Both Councils SOE edited by Research Communications Branch; glossary included 5
Copy Editing 2020 Both Councils SOE edited by Research Communications Branch 6
Ocean Acidification 2020 NEFMC SOE indicator added with in-situ data linked to preliminary lab work on thresholds 7
Include examples of High/Low engaged ports 2020 NEFMC SOE indicator reworked to show individual ports and social vulnerability 8
Expand wind lease area and habitat overlap 2020 MAFMC SOE indicator expanded to rank species with habitat in wind lease areas by landings in wind lease areas 9
Expand cold pool index 2020 MAFMC SOE indicator expanded with modeled data to include area and other attributes 10
Seperate Bigelow/Albatross catch diversity metric 2020 MAFMC SOE indicator added 11
Shark abundance and catch indicators 2020 MAFMC SOE multiple shark indicators added 12
Uncertainty estimates 2020 MAFMC SOE included for subset of indicators 13
Bycatch index 2020 NEFMC SOE added seal bycatch indicator, retained harbor porpoise indicator 14
Marine Mammal consumption 2019 MAFMC SOE added discussion of seal diets, memo no new consumption ests since Smith et al but could be in the future once work is complete 15
Estuarine Water Quality 2020 NEFMC SOE Chesapeake indicators updated and expanded 16
Forage abundance 2019 MAFMC SOE forage anomaly indicator added 17
Linking Condition 2020 MAFMC in progress; not ready for 2021 18
Avg weight of diet components by feeding group 2019 Internal in progress; part of fish condition 19
Mean stomach weight across feeding guilds 2019 MAFMC in progress; stomach fullness analysis started--species level 20
Shellfish growth/distribution linked to climate (system productivity) 2019 MAFMC in progress; project with R Mann student to start 2021 21
Cumulative weather index 2020 MAFMC in progress; data gathered for prototype 22
Management complexity 2019 MAFMC in progress; student work needs further analysis, no further work in 2020 23
VAST and uncertainty 2020 Both Councils in progress; not ready for 2021 24
Seal index 2020 MAFMC in progress; not ready for 2021 25
Incorporate social sciences survey from council 2020 NEFMC unable to start in 2020 26
Young of Year index from multiple surveys 2019 MAFMC unable to start in 2020 27
Biomass of spp not included in BTS 2020 MAFMC unable to start in 2020 28
Estuarine condition relative to power plants and temp 2019 MAFMC unable to start in 2020 29
Inflection points for indicators 2019 Both Councils unable to start in 2020 30
Reduce indicator dimensionality with multivariate statistics 2020 NEFMC unable to start in 2020 31
Breakpoints 2020 NEFMC unable to start in 2020 32
Re-evaluate EPUs 2020 NEFMC unable to start in 2020 33
26 / 28

Mid-Atlantic EAFM next steps: management strategy evaluation

  • Technical working group with similar approach and membership as used in conceptual model process
    • Diverse interdisciplinary and inter-agency membership – additional MSE expertise
    • Independent facilitator from outside the region
  • Introductory MSE workshop September 2020
    • Joint federal and state management advisory panels
    • Stakeholdrs likely to participate in MSE process
    • Introduced MSE process, concepts, expectations
    • Simulated stakeholder workshop to understand participant role
  • Online stakeholder feedback form January 2021

MSE kickoff example slide Walleye MSE Workshop

27 / 28

MSE approach and timeline

Stakeholder workshops

  • Regional public workshops (virtual; March-April 2021)
  • Core stakeholder group selected from combined feedback
  • W1: two virtual
    • Identify management objectives (14 June 2021)
    • Identify performance metrics and uncertainties (14 July 2021)
  • W2: Input on initial model development and results (October-November 2021)
  • W3: Review updated model and “final” results (Spring 2022)

Iterative process with Committees/Council/Board

28 / 28

Ecosystem reporting used in management processes

  • Ecosystem reporting linked to management objectives

    • Open science emphasis (Bastille, et al., 2020)
    • Report evolving since 2016
    • Fishery-relevant subset of full Ecosystem Status Reports

  • Used within Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Ecosystem Process (Muffley, et al., 2020)

  • Collaborative process key to getting information used

SOE cover page 2021

2 / 28

an iterative, collaborative process has evolved to formulate ecosystem advice and to apply it in decision making

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