Reply to Le Pape et al.: Management is key to preventing marine extinctions

Burgess, Matthew G.; Fredston, Alexa; Pinsky, Malin L.; Gaines, Steven D.; Tilman, David

doi:10.1073/pnas.1708147114

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The unimportance of ecological parameters for selecting between demand reduction and enforcement may not hold in this formulation. When demand declines with increasing price, ecological parameters affect equilibrium abundance (Burgess, Fredston‐Hermann, Pinsky, Gaines, & Tilman, ), but for poached species, uncertainties in socioeconomic parameters are still much higher than ecological ones, and therefore resolving economic uncertainty will still likely be more important for management decisions. Most importantly, it is difficult for managers to monitor demand for illegal products, and therefore the price reduction formulation is likely more pragmatic without better data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increase anti‐poaching law‐enforcement or reduce demand for wildlife products? A framework to guide strategic conservation investments

Holden

Biggs

Brink

et al. 2018

CONSERVATION LETTERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Donors, NGOs, and governments increasingly invest in campaigns to reduce consumer demand for wildlife products in an attempt to prevent the decline of overexploited and poached species. We provide a novel framework to aid these investment decisions based on a demand reduction campaign's return on investment compared to antipoaching law enforcement. A resulting decision rule shows that the relative effectiveness of demand reduction compared to increased enforcement depends entirely on social and economic uncertainties rather than ecological ones. Illustrative case studies on bushmeat and ivory reveal that campaigning to reduce demand may be more cost‐effective than antipoaching enforcement if demand reduction campaigns drive modest price reductions. The outputs from this framework can link targeted monitoring of wildlife product prices to management decisions that protect species threatened by harvest and trade.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increase anti‐poaching law‐enforcement or reduce demand for wildlife products? A framework to guide strategic conservation investments

Holden

Biggs

Brink

et al. 2018

CONSERVATION LETTERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Extinction Threats to Life in the Ocean and Opportunities for Their Amelioration

Sullivan¹,

Constant²,

Lubchenco³

2019

Biological Extinction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Synergies between price and life history enhance extinction risk in open‐access fisheries

Feitosa,

Burgess,

Free

et al. 2024

Fish and Fisheries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There have been few documented extinctions of fished species, but many bioeconomic models predict that open‐access incentives make extinction possible. Open‐access multi‐species fisheries can cause species' extinction if other, faster‐growing species maintain profits at fatal effort levels. Even target species can be profitably harvested to extinction if their prices rise sufficiently as they are depleted. Here, we explore interactions between these potential extinction mechanisms by modelling an open‐access multi‐species fishery with one or multiple fleets exploiting two species, each with different growth rates, ex‐vessel prices, and price dynamics. Increases in the strong stock's (the stock with higher productivity relative to fishing susceptibility) price as it is depleted increase the range of conditions under which the weak stock can be driven extinct and shrinks the range of bioeconomic parameters in which both species can coexist under open‐access. Catch hyperstability – whereby species become easier to catch as they are depleted – makes the weak stock weaker as it is depleted and further narrows the scope for coexistence. Fleet diversity in targeting ability can prevent weak stock extinction, as competition or switching balances species abundances. With few documented global fished‐species extinctions, our results raise important questions, which we discuss. Is the apparent lack of extinctions largely due to management? Are more species in lightly‐managed fisheries threatened with extinction than previously acknowledged? Have more extinctions than we realize already happened in data‐ and management‐poor fisheries? Or have fishes' high fecundity and the oceans' vastness provided protection against extinction that is uncaptured by existing theoretical models?

show abstract

Reply to Le Pape et al.: Management is key to preventing marine extinctions

Cited by 4 publications

References 10 publications

Increase anti‐poaching law‐enforcement or reduce demand for wildlife products? A framework to guide strategic conservation investments

Increase anti‐poaching law‐enforcement or reduce demand for wildlife products? A framework to guide strategic conservation investments

Extinction Threats to Life in the Ocean and Opportunities for Their Amelioration

Synergies between price and life history enhance extinction risk in open‐access fisheries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About