Tuna longline catch rates in the Indian Ocean: Did industrial fishing result in a 90% rapid decline in the abundance of large predatory species?
Myers and Worm claim that their analyses of catch rates following the commencement of industrial longline fishing for tuna and billfishes show that these longline fisheries rapidly depleted the abundance of these large oceanic predators by 90% (Myers RA, Worm B. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 2003;423:280-3). Their analyses were published in a high profile science journal along with an accompanying press release, which then attracted substantial international media focus and public attention. This media focus in turn has been used as a base for advocating major marine policy changes for pelagic tuna fisheries (e.g. a minimum of a 50% reduction in catches and establishment of extensive marine reserves). However, among numerous scientific experts involved in tuna and pelagic fishery research substantial concerns exist that Myers and Worm's analyses provide a misleading picture of the status of large predatory pelagic fishes. These concerns are reviewed using data from the Indian Ocean for illustrative purposes and indicate that the initial longline catches were not responsible for a rapid depletion of the main tuna and billfish stocks nor were they threatening the overall sustainability of these stocks. However, the status of a number of theses stocks is of concern as a result of large increases in catches in more recent years. The debate sparked by Myers and Worm's paper should not distract from the critical problem of developing and implementing effective international management policies. In addition to implications for fishery management, the publication, peer-review, scientific response and publicity process associated with the publication of Myers and Worm's paper are discussed. Concerns are raised that if these become standard practices for articles in high profile science journals that this would undermine the trust placed in such journal to provide an accurate and well-balanced representation of the most important new scientific findings and in their role to inform policy decisions based on these findings.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:30:y:2006:i:5:p:470-482. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.