Exploiting natural populations in an uncertain world

May, Robert M.; Beddington, J. R.; Horwood, J. W.; Shepherd, J. G.

doi:10.1016/0025-5564(78)90097-4

Cited by 185 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our example, the variance components inherit their value via the nonlinear revenue function. Alternatively, variance might be valued directly, if society prefers environmental portfolios that ensure reliable provision of ecosystem services (26). We obtain a value for stability and environmental sensitivity under an assumption of risk neutrality.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The economic value of ecological stability

Armsworth

Roughgarden

2003

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seemingly intangible ecosystem characteristics that preoccupy ecologists, like ecosystem stability and the responsiveness of populations to environmental variation, have quantifiable economic values. We show how to derive these values, and how their consideration should change environmental decision making. To illustrate these concepts, we use a simple reserve design model. When resource managers choose a particular landscape configuration, their decision affects both the mean abundance of species and the temporal variation in abundances. Population stability and related phenomena have economic value, because management actions affect the variance of ecosystem components. In our example, a larger reserve size is recommended when accounting for the stability of the managed ecosystem.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The economic value of ecological stability

Armsworth

Roughgarden

2003

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If there is a strong message from ecology for the 21st century, it is that we should not expect a single mechanism to be solely responsible for generating fluctuating populations but recognize the potential contribution of each and work toward understanding how these factors interact to affect the variability of natural populations (11)(12)(13)(14). For exploited species, we may also ask how human harvesting interacts with the other drivers to affect the variability of exploited populations (3,15,16). Here we focus on hypotheses ii and iii, with the goal of understanding the potential for each hypothesis to generate empirical patterns of population fluctuations and how human exploitation will interact with each hypothesis to affect population fluctuations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Fluctuations of fish populations and the magnifying effects of fishing

Shelton

Mangel

2011

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

184

185

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A central and classic question in ecology is what causes populations to fluctuate in abundance. Understanding the interaction between natural drivers of fluctuating populations and human exploitation is an issue of paramount importance for conservation and natural resource management. Three main hypotheses have been proposed to explain fluctuations: (i) species interactions, such as predator-prey interactions, cause fluctuations, (ii) strongly nonlinear single-species dynamics cause fluctuations, and (iii) environmental variation cause fluctuations. We combine a general fisheries model with data from a global sample of fish species to assess how two of these hypothesis, nonlinear single-species dynamics and environmental variation, interact with human exploitation to affect the variability of fish populations. In contrast with recent analyses that suggest fishing drives increased fluctuations by changing intrinsic nonlinear dynamics, we show that singlespecies nonlinear dynamics alone, both in the presence and absence of fisheries, are unlikely to drive deterministic fluctuations in fish; nearly all fish populations fall into regions of stable dynamics. However, adding environmental variation dramatically alters the consequences of exploitation on the temporal variability of populations. In a variable environment, (i) the addition of mortality from fishing leads to increased temporal variability for all species examined, (ii) variability in recruitment rates of juveniles contributes substantially more to fluctuations than variation in adult mortality, and (iii) the correlation structure of juvenile and adult vital rates plays an important and underappreciated role in determining population fluctuations. Our results are robust to alternative model formulations and to a range of environmental autocorrelation.stock-recruitment | temporal fluctuations | density dependence P erhaps no question in population biology has generated more attention and debate over the past century than why populations fluctuate (1-4). The question remains relevant today because the causes of fluctuations have important implications for the management and conservation of natural resources (5). Answers to this question can be grouped into three general hypotheses: (i) species interactions (e.g., predator-prey interactions or disease) generate fluctuating and cyclic population dynamics (4, 6, 7); (ii) nonlinearity in single-species dynamics generates deterministic fluctuations (2, 8, 9); and (iii) variation in the environment determines variation in vital rates (e.g., survival or growth), which in turn drive variation in abundance (1, 10). If there is a strong message from ecology for the 21st century, it is that we should not expect a single mechanism to be solely responsible for generating fluctuating populations but recognize the potential contribution of each and work toward understanding how these factors interact to affect the variability of natural populations (11)(12)(13)(14). For exploited species, we may also ask how human harvesti...

show abstract

“…Most fisheries agreements have focused on harvested species, establishing quotas to maximize the annual sustainable yield. Singlespecies deterministic models describing the interactions between fish and harvesters are based on equations that treat environmental and biological parameters as constants, and therefore ignore an important feature of fishery systems -uncertainty (Beddington and May 1977;May et al 1978;May et al 1979;May 1980;Sissenwine 1984). Sissenwine (1984: 21) states "The central problem facing fishery scientists and fishery managers is to understand and deal with recruitment variability."…”

Section: The Antarctic Ecosystem Exploitation Of Krill and Fisheriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation of Antarctic marine living resources

1979

Environmental Policy and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exploiting natural populations in an uncertain world

Cited by 185 publications

References 20 publications

The economic value of ecological stability

The economic value of ecological stability

Fluctuations of fish populations and the magnifying effects of fishing

Conservation of Antarctic marine living resources

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About