How Fishing Screws With Ecosystems

Fishing provokes volatile fluctuations in the targeted populations, though no one really knows why or how. Until now. Researchers from Scripps Institution of Oceanography have found that current methods of fishing decapitate the "age pyramid:" lopping off the few large, older fish who make up the top of the pyramid and leaving a broad base of faster growing small fish. This rapidly growing base is unstable, a finding with profound implications for fisheries management. The reason being that even though fishing typically extracts the larger members, fishing regulations often impose minimum size limits to protect the younger fishes.

For example: Imagine a container of water with one 500-pound fish. With food, it grows a little bigger. Without food it gets a bit smaller. Imagine the same container with 500 one-pound fish. They eat, reproduce and the resulting thousands of fish boom, quickly outstripping the resources and the population crashes. These many smaller fish—with the same initial biomass as the larger fish—can’t average out the environmental fluctuations, and in fact amplify them through higher turnover rates that promote boom and bust cycles.

"The type of regulation which we see in many sport fisheries is exactly wrong," said George Sugihara of Scripps. "It’s not the young ones that should be thrown back, but the larger, older fish that should be spared. Not only do the older fish provide stability and capacitance to the population, they provide more and better quality offspring." These more valuable (to the ecosystem) older fish are what some researchers have called the BOFFFs: the big old fat female fish.

The danger is that current policies manage according to current biomass targets, ignoring fish size. The resulting population instability could, in theory, propagate systemically to the whole ecosystem—a domino effect eventually affecting fishermen too. This is especially true when trying to rebuild fish stocks. Which is the case with Atlantic swordfish. Industry pressures to resume fishing are based on the restoration of historic biomass levels, even though the swordfish are clearly undersized. The study results are published in the journal Nature.

Julia Whitty is Mother Jones' environmental correspondent, lecturer, and 2008 winner of the Kiriyama Prize and the John Burroughs Medal Award. You can read from her new book, The Fragile Edge, and other writings, here.

Comments

"Fishing provokes volatile fluctuations in the targeted populations, though no one really knows why or how"

What? Perhaps it's because they take out tons of fish at a time? What's the point of this post?

Posted by: Fine-Dar on 04/17/08 at 10:48 AM Respond

The point of the post is that lopping off the biggest fish creates instability in the rest of the population.

Kind of like killing everyone over 50. Think about it...

Posted by: Elydog on 04/17/08 at 12:33 PM Respond

My point is .... does that observation take a genius? And like, is fishing going away? The question is obviously how can we fish and maintain the supply at the same time

Posted by: Fine-Dar on 04/17/08 at 5:19 PM Respond

Fine-Dar,

Apparently it does take a genius. Neither you nor I got the paper published in Nature.

If your question is correct, and I believe it is the right question, don't we need to know the effects of removing particular fish from the ecosystem in order to answer it? Since we do not take all fish equally, we need to know the effects of our actions.

Sometimes things that are pointed out by the geniuses of the world do appear obvious. Even relativity seems obvious once you know what Einstein was thinking about when he came up with it.

One particular type of genius excels at reducing difficult questions to simple solutions that seem obvious in hind sight.

And, please, by all means, come back to the blog and post the link to your peer reviewed paper on how to fish and maintain the supply at the same time. We lowly lay people would love to read it.

Posted by: Misanthropic Scott on 04/17/08 at 8:38 PM Respond

In the current issue of Mother Jones the controversial subject of oil tar sands is discussed. While the focus is on Canada, there is also a project in the works in Elk Point, South Dakota. It is being touted as bringing much needed jobs to the area and the environmental impacts are being down played. For more info visit:
http://www.elkpointgorilla.com/

Posted by: Jani on 04/21/08 at 8:42 AM Respond