Reconsidering the consequences of selective fisheries

Science

Volumn 335, Issue 6072, 2012, Pages 1045-1047

  Garcia, S M ^a   Kolding, J ^a,b   Rice, J ^a,c   Rochet, M J ^d   Zhou, S ^e   Arimoto, T ^f   Beyer, J E ^g   Borges, L ^h   Bundy, A ⁱ   Dunn, D ^j   Fulton, E A ^e   Hall, M ^k   Heino, M ^b,l,m   Law, R ⁿ   Makino, M ^a,o   Rijnsdorp, A D ^p   Simard, F ^q   Smith, A D M ^e  

^a International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

^c FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANADA   (Canada)

^d IFREMER   (France)

^e CSIRO   (Australia)

^f TOKYO UNIVERSITY OF MARINE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Japan)

^g TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DENMARK   (Denmark)

^h FishFix   (Belgium)

ⁱ BEDFORD INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY   (Canada)

^j DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^k INTER AMERICAN TROPICAL TUNA COMMISSION   (United States)

^l INSTITUTE OF MARINE RESEARCH   (Norway)

^m INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SYSTEMS ANALYSIS   (Austria)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^o JAPAN FISHERIES RESEARCH AND EDUCATION AGENCY   (Japan)

^p WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^q IUCN   (Switzerland)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CATCH COMPOSITION; FISHERY POLICY; FISHERY PRODUCTION; FISHERY REGULATION; FISHING MORTALITY; FOOD SECURITY; MAXIMUM SUSTAINABLE YIELD; OVERFISHING; STOCK ASSESSMENT;

BIODIVERSITY; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; FISHERY; FISHING; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HARVESTING; HUMAN; PREDATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCTION; SHORT SURVEY; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIOMASS; BODY SIZE; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FISH; FOOD INDUSTRY; POLICY;

ANIMALS; BIODIVERSITY; BIOMASS; BODY SIZE; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ECOSYSTEM; FISHERIES; FISHES; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; POLICY;

EID: 84863229272     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1214594     Document Type: Short Survey

References (38)

1. E. K. Pikitch et al., Science 305, 346 (2004).
2. B. Worm et al., Science 325, 578 (2009).
3. S. M. Garcia, A. A. Rosenberg, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B 365, 2869 (2010).
4. S. M. Garcia et al., Selective fishing and balanced harvest in relation to fisheries and ecosystem sustainability: Report of a scientific workshop in Nagoya, Japan, 14 to 16 October 2010 (IUCN and European Bureau for Conservation and Development, Gland, Switzerland, and Brussels, 2011); http://data.iucn.org/ dbtw-wpd/edocs/2011-001. pdf.
5. O. A. Misund, J. Kolding, P. Fréon, in Handbook of Fish Biology and Fisheries, vol. 2, Fisheries P. J. B. Hart, J. D. Reynolds, Eds. (Blackwell, Malden, MA, 2002), pp. 13-36.
6. A. Bundy, P. Fanning, K. C. T. Zwanenburg, ICES J. Mar. Sci. 62, 503 (2005).
7. S. Zhou et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107, 9485 (2010).
8. Biological productivity is the amount of new organic matter produced per biomass unit during a given period of time.
9. R. G. Halliday, A. T. Pinhorn, Fish. Res. 57, 211 (2002).
10. R. J. H. Beverton, S. J. Holt, On the dynamics of exploited fish populations, Fishery Investigations, Series 2 (Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1957).
11. M. P. Sissenwine, J. G. Shepherd, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44, 913 (1987).
12. R. L. Lewison, L. B. Crowder, A. J. Read, S. A. Freeman, Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 598 (2004).
13. FAO, Report of the technical consultation to develop international guidelines on by-catch management and reduction of discards, Rome, 6 to 10 December 2010 (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report no. 957, FAO, Rome, 2011).
14. S. J. Hall, B. M. Mainprize, Fish Fish. 6, 134 (2005).
15. S. J. Kennelly, M. K. Broadhurst, Fish Fish. 3, 340 (2002).
16. D. C. Dunn, A. M. Boustany, P. N. Halpin, Fish Fish. 12, 110 (2011).
17. C. Birkeland, P. K. Dayton, Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 356 (2005).
18. C. N. Anderson et al., Nature 452, 835 (2008).
19. R. Law, ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57, 659 (2000).
20. C. Jørgensen et al., Science 318, 1247 (2007).
21. A. Kuparinen, J. Merilä, Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 652 (2007).
22. N. Daan, H. Gislason, J. G. Pope, J. C. Rice, ICES J. Mar. Sci. 62, 177 (2005).
23. The size spectrum is the relative proportion of biomass per size-class in the fish community (see fig. S1). Increased spectrum slope reflects relative increase in biomass in smaller-size classes compared with larger classes.
24. E. Jul-Larsen, J. Kolding, J. R. Nielsen, R. Overa, P. A. M. van Zwieten, Management, co-management or no management? Major dilemmas in southern African freshwater fisheries (Tech. Rep. 426/1-2, FAO, Rome, 2003).
25. J. G. Pope, ICES Mar. Sci. Symp. 193, 22 (1991).
26. M.-J. Rochet, J. S. Collie, S. Jennings, S. J. Hall, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 68, 469 (2011).
27. M.-J. Rochet, E. Benoît, Proc. Biol. Sci. 279, 284 (2012).
28. K. H. Andersen, M. Pedersen, Proc. Biol. Sci. 277, 795 (2010).
29. United Nations, Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August to 4 September 2002 (Tech. Report No.A/CONF.199/20*, United Nations, New York, 2002).
30. MSY calculations assume that, by applying a constant fishing mortality with a given selectivity (externally determined by fisheries), a constant yield can be taken from a stock over an indefinite period. There is one given fishing mortality rate that maximizes this yield, providing MSY.
31. M. N. Maunder, Fish Fish. 3, 251 (2002).
32. J. Link et al., Fish Fish. 12, 152 (2011).
33. Ecosystem level constraints on target species catch limits have been agreed, e.g., in the Antarctic ecosystem (34).
34. A. J. Constable et al., ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57, 778 (2000).
35. B. Gobert, Fish. Res. 19, 87 (1994).
36. I. Clucas, A study of the options for utilization of bycatch and discards from marine capture fisheries (FAO Fish. Circ., FAO, Rome, 1997).
37. Sainsbury's launches 'Switch the Fish' campaign, www. fishnewseu.com/latest-news/uk/5973-sainburys-launchesswitch- thefish-campaign.html.
38. This work results from a workshop sponsored by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Census of Marine Life, the Ministries of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs and of Foreign Affairs of Norway, the Global Guardian Trust of Japan, the Ocean Alliance of the University of Tokyo, the Japan National Association for the Conservation of Fishing Ground, the Japan Fisheries Association, and the Technical University of Denmark. M.-J.R. received support from the Pew Charitable Trusts. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the supporting organizations.