4.5 Article

Life histories predict vulnerability to overexploitation in parrotfishes

期刊

CORAL REEFS
卷 33, 期 4, 页码 869-878

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00338-014-1187-5

关键词

Vulnerability; Parrotfish; Life history; Age at maturity; Multispecies fisheries

资金

  1. Guam Coral Reef Initiative
  2. NOAA Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center
  3. Postgraduate Research Scholarship from James Cook University (JCU)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A scarcity of life-history data currently exists for many exploited coral reef fishes, hindering our ability to interpret fishery dynamics and develop sound conservation policies. In particular, parrotfishes (Family Labridae) represent a ubiquitous and ecologically important group that is increasingly prevalent in commercial and artisanal fisheries worldwide. We used both fishery-dependent and fishery-independent data to examine the effect of life histories on vulnerability to overexploitation in parrotfishes. Vulnerability for each species was derived from independent measures associated with both temporal (20-year catch records) and spatial datasets. Most life-history traits examined were significant predictors of vulnerability across species, but their relative utility differed considerably. Length-based traits (e.g., lengths at maturity and sex change, maximum length) were generally superior to age-based traits (e.g., life span), but one age-based trait, age at female maturation, was the best predictor. The results suggest that easily derived metrics such as maximum length can be effective measures of sensitivity to exploitation when applied to phylogenetically related multispecies assemblages, but more holistic and comprehensive age-based demographic data should be sought, especially in data-deficient and heavily impacted regions. Given the increasing prevalence of parrotfishes in the global coral reef harvest, species-specific responses demonstrate the capacity for heavy fishing pressure to alter parrotfish assemblages considerably.

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

4.5
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