4.8 Article

The trophic fingerprint of marine fisheries

期刊

NATURE
卷 468, 期 7322, 页码 431-435

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature09528

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of California Santa Barbara
  2. US National Science Foundation (NSF)
  3. Moore Foundation
  4. School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington
  5. Canadian Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
  6. Canadian Foundation for Innovation
  7. Pew Charitable Trusts
  8. Directorate For Geosciences
  9. Division Of Ocean Sciences [1041570] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biodiversity indicators provide a vital window on the state of the planet, guiding policy development and management(1,2). The most widely adopted marine indicator is mean trophic level (MTL) from catches, intended to detect shifts from high-trophic-level predators to low-trophic-level invertebrates and plankton-feeders(3-5). This indicator underpins reported trends in human impacts, declining when predators collapse (fishing down marine food webs'')(3) and when low-trophic-level fisheries expand (fishing through marine food webs'')(6). The assumption is that catch MTL measures changes in ecosystem MTL and biodiversity(2,5). Here we combine model predictions with global assessments of MTL from catches, trawl surveys and fisheries stock assessments(7) and find that catch MTL does not reliably predict changes in marine ecosystems. Instead, catch MTL trends often diverge from ecosystem MTL trends obtained from surveys and assessments. In contrast to previous findings of rapid declines in catch MTL3, we observe recent increases in catch, survey and assessment MTL. However, catches from most trophic levels are rising, which can intensify fishery collapses even when MTL trends are stable or increasing. To detect fishing impacts on marine biodiversity, we recommend greater efforts to measure true abundance trends for marine species, especially those most vulnerable to fishing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据