Advertisement

Fishing Down Marine Food Webs: An Update

  • Daniel Pauly
  • Maria Lourdes D. Palomares
Chapter

Abstract

One of the major ecosystem impacts of fishing is the selective extirpation of large, long-lived fishes and their replacement in the ecosystem and in fisheries catches by small, short-lived fishes and invertebrates. As large fish tend to be top-predators, feeding on smaller fishes while smaller fish and invertebrates feed on plankton and/or detritus, this process, recently shown to be operating globally, has been called “fishing down marine food webs.”

Here, the demostration is made that two potential sources of bias identified by critiques of the approach used to demonstrate this process in fact contribute to partly mask it; thus explicit consideration of these sources of bias shows the process to be stronger than initially thought. Some applicant are briefly discussed.

Keywords

Trophic Level Large Fish Fishing Effort Fishing Mortality Herbivorous Zooplankton 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alverson, D.L., M. Freeberg, J. Pope and S. Murawski (1994): A global assessment of fisheries by-catch and discards: A summary overview. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 339, Rome, 233 p.Google Scholar
  2. Beddington, J.R. and J.G. Cooke. 1981. The potential yield of fish stocks. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 242, Rome, 47 p.Google Scholar
  3. Beverton, R.J.H. and S.J. Holt. 1957. On the dynamics of exploited fish populations. Fisheries Invest. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries Food G.B. Ser, II 19. 533 p.Google Scholar
  4. Caddy, J.F., J. Csirke, S.M. Garcia, and R.J.R. Grainger. 1998. How pervasive is “Fishing down marine food webs?.” Science 282:183 [full text (p. “1383a”) on www.sciencemag.org/cgi/ content/full/282/5393/1383].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christensen, V. 1999. Fishery-induced changes in a marine ecosystem: insight from models of the Gulf of Thailand. J. Fish Biol. 53 (Suppl. A): 128-142.Google Scholar
  6. Christensen, V. and D. Pauly. 1992. The ECOPATH II — a software for balancing steady-state ecosystem models and calculating network characteristics. Ecological Modelling 61:169–185 [see also www.ecopath.org]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cushing, D.H. 1982. Climate and Fisheries. Academic Press, London. 373 p.Google Scholar
  8. Daan, N. 1980. A review of replacement of depleted stocks by other species and the mechanics underlying such replacement. Rapp. P. v. Réun. Cons. Int. Explr. Mer 177: 405–421.Google Scholar
  9. Frazier, J.G. 1997. Sustainable development: modern elixir or sack dress? Environmental Conservation 24(2): 182–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Froese, R. and D. Pauly (Editors) 1998. FishBase 98: Concepts, design and data sources. ICLARM, Manila. 293 p. [distributed with two CD-ROMs; see also www.fishbase.org]Google Scholar
  11. Kline, T.C., Jr. and D. Pauly. 1998. Cross-validation of trophic level estimates from a mass-balance model of Prince William Sound using 15N/14N data. Pp. 693–702. In: T.J. Quinn II, F. Funk. J. Heifetz, J.N. Ianelli, J.E. Powers, J.F. Schweigert, P.J. Sullivan, C.-I. Zhang (eds.). Proceedings of the International Symposium on Fishery Stock Assessment Models. Alaska Sea Grant College program Report No. 98–01. Alaska Sea Grant, Fairbanks.Google Scholar
  12. Kurlansky, M. 1997. Cod: a biography of the fish that changed the world. Walker Publishing, New York. 294 p.Google Scholar
  13. Lindeman, R.L. 1942. The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology 23(4):399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Odum, WE. and E.J. Heald. 1975. The detritus-based food web of an estuarine mangrove community. Pp. 265–286. In: L.E. Cronin (ed.) Estuarine Research. Vol. 1, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Pauly, D. 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 10(10):430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pauly, D. and V. Christensen. 1995. Primary production required to sustain global fisheries. Nature 374:255-257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pauly, D., V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese and F.C. Torres Jr. 1998a. Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279:860–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pauly, D., R. Froese and V. Christensen. 1998b. How pervasive is “Fishing down marine food webs”: response to Caddy et al. Science 282: 183 [full text (p. “1383a”) on http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5393/1383]www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5393/1383].Google Scholar
  19. Pauly, D. and M.L. Soriano. 1986. Some practical extensions to Beverton and Holt’s relative yield-per-recruit model. Pp. 491-496. In: J.L. Maclean, L.B. Dizon and L.V. Hosillo (eds.). The First Asian Fisheries Forum. Asian Fisheries Society, Manila, Philippines.Google Scholar
  20. Silliman, B. 1831. Fish of Hudson River. Amer. J. Science and Arts. 20:150-152.Google Scholar
  21. Skud, B.E. 1982. Dominance in fishes: the relation between environment and abundance. Science. 216:144–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tacon, A.G.J. 1998. Global trends in aquaculture and aquafeed production 1984-1995. Pp. 5-37. In: International aquafeed directory and buyer’s guide 1997/98. Turret RAI, Agrifood Division.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Pauly
    • 1
  • Maria Lourdes D. Palomares
    • 2
  1. 1.Fisheries CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM)MakatiPhilippines

Personalised recommendations