Modelling Seamount Ecosystems and their Fisheries

Fulton, Beth; Morato, Telmo; Pitcher, Tony J.

doi:10.1002/9780470691953.ch15

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Central to the top-down relaxation hypothesis is the hypothetical existence of a large community of pelagic predators that may opportunistically consume gelatinous plankton, thereby stabilizing their populations [6] , [7] . Although there is increasing evidence that many pelagic fish may occasionally consume gelatinous plankton [11] , and some ecosystem models include tuna and billfish as major consumers of gelatinous plankton [12] , it is a big leap from an occasional-consumption model to the strong top-down control assumed by the top-down relaxation hypothesis. Furthermore, nothing is known about the actual significance of gelatinous plankton in the diet of most pelagic mesopredators and apex predators, and there is hard evidence for massive consumption of gelatinous plankton only for some fishes [7] , [13] , [14] and pelagic sea turtles [15] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Massive Consumption of Gelatinous Plankton by Mediterranean Apex Predators

Cardona¹,

Quevedo

Borrell³

et al. 2012

PLoS ONE

195

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen were used to test the hypothesis that stomach content analysis has systematically overlooked the consumption of gelatinous zooplankton by pelagic mesopredators and apex predators. The results strongly supported a major role of gelatinous plankton in the diet of bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus), little tunny (Euthynnus alletteratus), spearfish (Tetrapturus belone) and swordfish (Xiphias gladius). Loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the oceanic stage and ocean sunfish (Mola mola) also primarily relied on gelatinous zooplankton. In contrast, stable isotope ratios ruled out any relevant consumption of gelatinous plankton by bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), blue shark (Prionace glauca), leerfish (Lichia amia), bonito (Sarda sarda), striped dolphin (Stenella caerueloalba) and loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the neritic stage, all of which primarily relied on fish and squid. Fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) were confirmed as crustacean consumers. The ratios of stable isotopes in albacore (Thunnus alalunga), amberjack (Seriola dumerili), blue butterfish (Stromaeus fiatola), bullet tuna (Auxis rochei), dolphinfish (Coryphaena hyppurus), horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus), mackerel (Scomber scombrus) and pompano (Trachinotus ovatus) were consistent with mixed diets revealed by stomach content analysis, including nekton and crustaceans, but the consumption of gelatinous plankton could not be ruled out completely. In conclusion, the jellyvorous guild in the Mediterranean integrates two specialists (ocean sunfish and loggerhead sea turtles in the oceanic stage) and several opportunists (bluefin tuna, little tunny, spearfish, swordfish and, perhaps, blue butterfish), most of them with shrinking populations due to overfishing.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Massive Consumption of Gelatinous Plankton by Mediterranean Apex Predators

Cardona¹,

Quevedo

Borrell³

et al. 2012

PLoS ONE

195

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are a number of more location-specific models such as the Globally Applicable Area-Disaggregated General Ecosystem Toolbox ('Gadget': Begley & Howell, 2004); Boreal Migration and Consumption (BorMiCon: Stefánnson & Pálsson, 1998); and the European Regional Seas Ecosystem Model (ERMSEM: Baretta-Bekker & Baretta, 1997). It is, however, worth noting that, at present, no general ecosystem simulation modelling systems other than EwE and, possibly Atlantis, have the capacity of performing an equivalent task to that set out here; reviews may be found in Fulton et al (2007) and Whipple et al (2000).…”

Section: Seafood Sustainability and Krill Harvestmentioning

confidence: 94%

The sea ahead: challenges to marine biology from seafood sustainability

Pitcher

2008

Hydrobiologia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many have documented the litany of disaster and depletion suffered by living organisms in the world's oceans, where today anthropogenic impacts from fisheries and pollution on biodiversity and resilience are further exacerbated by threats of climate change. At the same time, the demand for sustainable seafood has never been greater. By presenting three challenges to marine biology, this article explores how we may be able to throw light upon practical measures that can mitigate, redress and avert some of the worst future scenarios whilst continuing to supply, and even increase, economic, social and nutritional benefits from seafood. First, I present a rigorous, multi-disciplinary, semi-quantitative ecosystem evaluation framework (EEF) that characterises the essential ecological features of different marine ecosystems and can evaluate the status of threats. The general framework is designed to work in the face of ignorance and quantifies uncertainty. An example is presented from recent work on seamounts. Second, a desperate need for food supplies will almost inevitably lead to further fishing down the trophic levels in marine food webs. Some have argued to do this deliberately to mitigate global problems of hunger, especially in the face of concerns about the sustainability of terrestrial agriculture, and we can be sure that economic pressures and market values for increasingly scarce protein will lead to tendencies of this type. One example is a possible increased exploitation of krill, which at first sight presents vastly increased amounts of protein that could be harvested. Here, I show how large but potentially sustainable levels of catch may be estimated in a precautionary fashion. Third, inter alia, a practical restoration agenda is discussed. The importance of historical reconstruction is exemplified by 'Back to the Future' research which attempts to use quantitative descriptions of past ecosystems to emplace practical restoration goals for management (such as Optimal Restorable Biomass, ORB), while quantifying risks in the management of marine ecosystems from climate and uncertainty. All three areas and their examples represent work-in-progress, and their credibility and utility pivot on the quality of our insight into critical ecological processes and on the widespread adoption of rational, precautionary policies. Moreover, they present profound scientific and human challenges to the science of marine biology.

show abstract

“…The end-to-end modeling approach requires full coverage of ecosystem components, the integration of physical and biological processes at different scales and two-way interaction between ecosystem components (e.g., Fulton et al, 2005Fulton et al, , 2007. End-to-end models attempt to include all major relevant processes in the system (Fig.…”

Section: General Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%