Featured Research

from universities, journals, and other organizations

Industry fishing for profits, not predators

Date:
June 25, 2010
Source:
University of Washington
Summary:
People who fish for a living pursue top profits, not necessarily top predators, according to global catch and economic data from the last 55 years.

Suresh Sethi, University of Washington doctoral student, has experience as a commercial fisherman, taking part here in the Bristol Bay, Alaska, drift gillnet salmon fishery.
Credit: Image courtesy of University of Washington

People who fish for a living pursue top profits, not necessarily top predators, according to the first-ever analysis of worldwide catch and economic data for the past 55 years.

Related Articles


This differs from the observation raised 10 years ago that humans were "fishing down" the food web. It was assumed that catches of the predators at the top of the food chain, such as halibut and tuna, were declining after fishers started landing more fish from lower on the food chain, such as herring and anchovies.

The idea was that people had targeted fish at top of the food web causing declines that forced harvests of fish at ever lower "trophic levels" in the food web. Proponent of the idea at the time wrote, "If we don't manage this resource, we will be left with a diet of jellyfish and plankton stew."

Fishing down the food web has been debated by biologists and fisheries managers since the idea emerged. However, some in the news media, as well as a number of conservation groups and individuals, accepted the hypothesis without question, according to Suresh Sethi, a University of Washington doctoral student in aquatic and fishery sciences.

"We wanted to examine why fishermen might be motivated to preferentially harvest different trophic levels and our data showed that fishing down the food web -- by moving from higher to lower value species -- is an incomplete story of the evolution of global fishery development," says Sethi, lead author of a paper on the subject published this week in the early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "We found no evidence that humans first developed commercial fisheries on top predators then sequentially moved to species lower in the food web since the 1950s. Instead, those who fish for a living have pursued high revenue fisheries, no matter what the tropic level of the species."

It's important to know what motivates those who fish for a living as nations move toward ecosystem-based management, Sethi says.

"Attributes related to economic opportunity will be important for understanding which species are susceptible to new fishery development or expansion of existing harvest when costs and benefits are altered, for example, through government subsidies," the paper says. Co-authors are Trevor Branch, UW research scientist with aquatic and fishery sciences, and Reg Watson, senior research fellow with University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

It was the late 1990s when University of British Columbia's Daniel Pauly published findings in Science magazine that said global landings of fish included more species from lower trophic levels. In discussions that followed, it was assumed that this was because fish at the higher levels fetched the best prices and, as they were depleted, fishers had to turn to lower-value fish that also are lower on the food web.

Work published in 2006 challenged the idea that the largest fish were, in fact, gone. The work led by UW researcher Tim Essington documented that, in the majority of ecosystems studied, when the catch changed to include fish from lower trophic levels, the catch of fish higher up the food chain stayed the same or increased.

The new research considers the assumption that fish at the top of the food web are targeted because they have the most economic value. Some do, but many don't.

Take price. The authors divided fisheries into three groups and used a worldwide economic database to find that average prices for the lowest trophic levels, which includes pricey shellfish such as shrimp and abalone, were 25 percent higher overall than fish at the highest trophic level. Prices for the lowest level were 45 percent higher than for the middle group, which includes fish like herring.

In the drive to catch fish with the best economic value, species that are super abundant present some of the best opportunities. Alaska pollock, for example, are caught in great quantities in the Bering Sea and are a very valuable fishery even though the fish is inexpensive to buy and not high on the food web. Similarly, species found in shallower water were targeted first because they are less expensive to catch and therefore profitable even if they don't fetch top prices, the researchers said. The fishing industry also preferred larger-body fish that can be made into more kinds of products, some with higher values.

Taking fishing motivation into account should help make plans for sustainable harvests more reliable. This is of growing importance in a world where fishing is a mature industry and the potential for new fisheries is very limited, co-author Branch says.

"Our research revealed that nearly all high-catch fisheries are already developed, and that few new high-catch or valuable fishing opportunities exist today," Branch says. "Total revenue from new fisheries dropped 95 percent from 1950 to 1999. Meanwhile, fisheries already developed by 1980 contribute more than 90 percent of both catch and total revenue expected from marine fisheries today."

This work was part of a National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis working group funded by the National Science Foundation and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.


Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by University of Washington. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.


Journal Reference:

  1. S. A. Sethi, T. A. Branch, R. Watson. Global fishery development patterns are driven by profit but not trophic level. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2010; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003236107

Cite This Page:

University of Washington. "Industry fishing for profits, not predators." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 25 June 2010. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100625101114.htm>.
University of Washington. (2010, June 25). Industry fishing for profits, not predators. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 24, 2014 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100625101114.htm
University of Washington. "Industry fishing for profits, not predators." ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100625101114.htm (accessed October 24, 2014).

Share This



More Plants & Animals News

Friday, October 24, 2014

Featured Research

from universities, journals, and other organizations


Featured Videos

from AP, Reuters, AFP, and other news services

Deep Sea 'mushroom' Could Be Early Branch on Tree of Life

Deep Sea 'mushroom' Could Be Early Branch on Tree of Life

Reuters - Innovations Video Online (Oct. 24, 2014) Miniature deep sea animals discovered off the Australian coast almost three decades ago are puzzling scientists, who say the organisms have proved impossible to categorise. Academics at the Natural History of Denmark have appealed to the world scientific community for help, saying that further information on Dendrogramma enigmatica and Dendrogramma discoides could answer key evolutionary questions. Jim Drury has more. Video provided by Reuters
Powered by NewsLook.com
Black Bear Cub Goes Sunday Shopping

Black Bear Cub Goes Sunday Shopping

Reuters - Light News Video Online (Oct. 23, 2014) Price check on honey? Bear cub startles Oregon drugstore shoppers. Rough Cut (no reporter narration). Video provided by Reuters
Powered by NewsLook.com
Dances With Wolves in China's Wild West

Dances With Wolves in China's Wild West

AFP (Oct. 23, 2014) One man is on a mission to boost the population of wolves in China's violence-wracked far west. The animal - symbol of the Uighur minority there - is under threat with a massive human resettlement program in the region. Duration: 00:41 Video provided by AFP
Powered by NewsLook.com
Breakfast Debate: To Eat Or Not To Eat?

Breakfast Debate: To Eat Or Not To Eat?

Newsy (Oct. 23, 2014) Conflicting studies published in the same week re-ignited the debate over whether we should be eating breakfast. Video provided by Newsy
Powered by NewsLook.com

Search ScienceDaily

Number of stories in archives: 140,361

Find with keyword(s):
Enter a keyword or phrase to search ScienceDaily for related topics and research stories.

Save/Print:
Share:

Breaking News:

Strange & Offbeat Stories


Plants & Animals

Earth & Climate

Fossils & Ruins

In Other News

... from NewsDaily.com

Science News

Health News

Environment News

Technology News



Save/Print:
Share:

Free Subscriptions


Get the latest science news with ScienceDaily's free email newsletters, updated daily and weekly. Or view hourly updated newsfeeds in your RSS reader:

Get Social & Mobile


Keep up to date with the latest news from ScienceDaily via social networks and mobile apps:

Have Feedback?


Tell us what you think of ScienceDaily -- we welcome both positive and negative comments. Have any problems using the site? Questions?
Mobile: iPhone Android Web
Follow: Facebook Twitter Google+
Subscribe: RSS Feeds Email Newsletters
Latest Headlines Health & Medicine Mind & Brain Space & Time Matter & Energy Computers & Math Plants & Animals Earth & Climate Fossils & Ruins