scholarly journals Overfishing causes frequent fish population collapses but rare extinctions

2017 ◽  
Vol 114 (31) ◽  
pp. E6274-E6274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivier Le Pape ◽  
Sylvain Bonhommeau ◽  
Anne-Elise Nieblas ◽  
Jean-Marc Fromentin
2015 ◽  
Vol 112 (21) ◽  
pp. 6648-6652 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy E. Essington ◽  
Pamela E. Moriarty ◽  
Halley E. Froehlich ◽  
Emma E. Hodgson ◽  
Laura E. Koehn ◽  
...  

Forage fish support the largest fisheries in the world but also play key roles in marine food webs by transferring energy from plankton to upper trophic-level predators, such as large fish, seabirds, and marine mammals. Fishing can, thereby, have far reaching consequences on marine food webs unless safeguards are in place to avoid depleting forage fish to dangerously low levels, where dependent predators are most vulnerable. However, disentangling the contributions of fishing vs. natural processes on population dynamics has been difficult because of the sensitivity of these stocks to environmental conditions. Here, we overcome this difficulty by collating population time series for forage fish populations that account for nearly two-thirds of global catch of forage fish to identify the fingerprint of fisheries on their population dynamics. Forage fish population collapses shared a set of common and unique characteristics: high fishing pressure for several years before collapse, a sharp drop in natural population productivity, and a lagged response to reduce fishing pressure. Lagged response to natural productivity declines can sharply amplify the magnitude of naturally occurring population fluctuations. Finally, we show that the magnitude and frequency of collapses are greater than expected from natural productivity characteristics and therefore, likely attributed to fishing. The durations of collapses, however, were not different from those expected based on natural productivity shifts. A risk-based management scheme that reduces fishing when populations become scarce would protect forage fish and their predators from collapse with little effect on long-term average catches.


Fact Sheet ◽  
2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald L. DeAngelis ◽  
Louis J. Gross ◽  
Holly Gaff ◽  
Rene Salinas
Keyword(s):  

1978 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 184-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. J. Westrheim ◽  
W. E. Ricker

Consider two representative samples of fish taken in different years from the same fish population, this being a population in which year-class strength varies. For the "parental" sample the length and age of the fish are determined and are used to construct an "age–length key," the fractions of the fish in each (short) length interval that are of each age. For the "filial" sample only the length is measured, and the parental age–length key is used to compute the corresponding age distribution. Trials show that the age–length key will reproduce the age-frequency distribution of the filial sample without systematic bias only if there is no overlap in length between successive ages. Where there is much overlap, the age–length key will compute from the filial length-frequency distribution approximately the parental age distribution. Additional bias arises if the rate of growth if a year-class is affected by its abundance, or if the survival rate in the population changes. The length of the fish present in any given part of a population's range can vary with environmental factors such as depth of the water; nevertheless, a sample taken in any part of that range can be used to compute age from the length distribution of a sample taken at the same time in any other part of the range, without systematic bias. But this of course is not likely to be true of samples taken from different populations of the species. Key words: age–length key, bias, Pacific ocean perch, Sebastes alutus


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document