The first standardized, global assessment of these fishes, using Red List criteria, reveals threatened species needing protection.
The use of fish aggregating devices (FADs) by purse seine fisheries has come under increasing criticism for its potential deleterious impacts on tuna stocks, for high levels of by‐catch and threats to the biodiversity of tropical pelagic ecosystems. Here, we review the current state of scientific knowledge of this fishing technique and current management strategies. Our intent is to encourage objective discussion of the topic and highlight areas worthy of future research. We show that catching juvenile tuna around FADs does not necessarily result in overfishing of stocks, although more selective fishing techniques would likely help obtain higher yield. Levels of non‐tuna by‐catch are comparable to or less than in other commercial tuna fisheries and are primarily comprised of species that are not considered threatened. Accordingly, to minimize impacts on ecosystem balance, there is merit in considering that all species captured in purse seine fisheries (excluding vulnerable species such as turtles and sharks) should be retained, but the consequences of such a measure should be carefully examined before implementation. The take of vulnerable species could be further reduced by introduction of additional mitigation measures, but their potential benefits would be limited without parallel efforts with other gears. Finally, there is no unequivocal empirical evidence that FADs represent an ‘ecological trap’ that inherently disrupts tuna biology although further research should focus on this issue. We encourage RFMOs to expand and improve their FAD management plans. Under appropriate management regimes, FAD fishing could be an ecologically and economically sensible fishing method.
A variety of tools are available to quantify uncertainty in age-structured fish stock assessments and in management forecasts. These tools are based on particular choices for the underlying population dynamics model, the aspects of the assessment considered uncertain, and the approach for assessing uncertainty (Bayes, frequentist or likelihood). The current state of the art is advancing rapidly as a consequence of the availability of increased computational power, but there remains little consistency in the choices made for assessments and forecasts. This can be explained by several factors including the specifics of the species under consideration, the purpose for which the analysis is conducted and the institutional framework within which the methods are developed and used, including the availability and customary usage of software tools. Little testing of either the methods or their assumptions has yet been done. Thus, it is not possible to argue either that the methods perform well or perform poorly or that any particular conditioning choices are more appropriate in general terms than others. Despite much recent progress, fisheries science has yet to identify a means for identifying appropriate conditioning choices such that the probability distributions which are calculated for management purposes do adequately represent the probabilities of eventual real outcomes. Therefore, we conclude that increased focus should be placed on testing and carefully examining the choices made when conducting these analyses, and that more attention must be given to examining the sensitivity to alternative assumptions and model structures. Provision of advice concerning uncertainty in stock assessments should include consideration of such sensitivities, and should use model-averaging methods, decision tables or management procedure simulations in cases where advice is strongly sensitive to model assumptions
Commercial tunas and billfishes (swordfish, marlins and sailfish) provide considerable catches and income in both developed and developing countries. These stocks vary in status from lightly exploited to rebuilding to severely depleted. Previous studies suggested that this variability could result from differences in life-history characteristics and economic incentives, but differences in exploitation histories and management measures also have a strong effect on current stock status. Although the status (biomass and fishing mortality rate) of major tuna and billfish stocks is well documented, the effect of these diverse factors on current stock status and the effect of management measures in rebuilding stocks have not been analysed at the global level. Here, we show that, particularly for tunas, stocks were more depleted if they had high commercial value, were long-lived species, had small pre-fishing biomass and were subject to intense fishing pressure for a long time. In addition, implementing and enforcing total allowable catches (TACs) had the strongest positive influence on rebuilding overfished tuna and billfish stocks. Other control rules such as minimum size regulations or seasonal closures were also important in reducing fishing pressure, but stocks under TAC implementations showed the fastest increase of biomass. Lessons learned from this study can be applied in managing large industrial fisheries around the world. In particular, tuna regional fisheries management organizations should consider the relative effectiveness of management measures observed in this study for rebuilding depleted large pelagic stocks.
This paper describes some of the ways that the uncertainty in fisheries scientific advice has been communicated to managers for different fisheries in the United States in the past several years. Describing the uncertainty can be important in allowing managers to weigh the benefits and losses of different management strategies and to allay concerns about the effects of process, measurement, and model errors on the scientific advice, even if a formal decision theoretic risk analysis has not been carried out. The four general steps in analyzing uncertainty and assessing risk are estimation of the uncertainty in the assessment of current stock status due to measurement error, evaluation of the impacts of potential model errors on the assessment, stochastic projections incorporating estimation error and process errors to investigate the impacts of different management options, and assessment of risk using simple utility functions. At least one of these steps has been included in assessment analyses of about 20 major U.S. fisheries. All of these steps have been incorporated in the scientific advice on a few fisheries to date and should be attempted whenever possible to improve the information available to fishery managers.
Bycatch in fisheries can have profound effects on the abundance of species with relatively low resilience to increased mortality, can alter the evolutionary characteristics and concomitant fitness of affected populations through heritable trait-based selective removals, and can alter ecosystem functions, structure and services through food web trophic links. We challenge current piecemeal bycatch management paradigms, which reduce the mortality of one taxon of conservation concern at the unintended expense of others. Bycatch mitigation measures may also reduce intraspecific genetic diversity. We drew examples of broadly prescribed 'best practice' methods to mitigate bycatch that result in unintended cross-taxa conflicts from pelagic longline, tuna purse seine, gillnet and trawl fisheries. We identified priority improvements in data quality and in understanding ecological effects of bycatch fishing mortality to support holistic ecological risk assessments of the effects of bycatch removals conducted through semi-quantitative and model-based ().,-volV) ( 01234567 89().,-volV) approaches. A transition to integrated bycatch assessment and management that comprehensively consider biodiversity across its hierarchical manifestations is needed, where relative risks and conflicts from alternative bycatch management measures are evaluated and accounted for in fisheries decision-making processes. This would enable managers to select measures with intentional and acceptable tradeoffs to best meet objectives, when conflicts are unavoidable.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.