James Marcus Drymon, Amanda E. Jargowsky, Evan G. Prasky, Edward V. Camp, Ashley Oliphant, Sean P. Powers, Steven B. Scyphers
{"title":"掠夺:与海洋的古老冲突","authors":"James Marcus Drymon, Amanda E. Jargowsky, Evan G. Prasky, Edward V. Camp, Ashley Oliphant, Sean P. Powers, Steven B. Scyphers","doi":"10.1111/faf.12846","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Depredation (the partial or complete removal of a hooked species by a non-target species) is a human–wildlife conflict as old as humans and the sea. In some ways, depredation is no different today than it was a century ago. But in many ways, this conflict has become more complicated. Following three decades of successful management, some US shark populations have begun to rebuild. However, many anglers attribute perceived increases in shark depredation to management measures, claiming they have led to ‘overpopulation’ of sharks and/or learned behaviour by sharks. We investigated whether these factors could explain the reported increases in depredation. Based on fishery-independent surveys, neither shark population increases nor learned behaviour by sharks is evident. However, increases in angler effort provide an alternative explanation that is not often considered. While far from a smoking gun, at least four themes emerge from this thought exercise. First, it is important to understand historical predator baselines. Second, it is important to acknowledge lifting baselines, that is, instances where previously depleted populations are recovering. Third, it is important to remember that there are many instances when stakeholder observations were initially misaligned with traditional scientific observations but were ultimately recognized as pivotal for filling data gaps. Finally, and perhaps most important, is the acknowledgement that perceived conflict is as potent as real conflict. Arguably, it may not matter if depredation has increased or decreased; the overwhelming perception from stakeholders is an increase in depredation, and this is the perceived (or real) conflict that must be addressed.</p>","PeriodicalId":169,"journal":{"name":"Fish and Fisheries","volume":"25 5","pages":"806-810"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Depredation: An old conflict with the sea\",\"authors\":\"James Marcus Drymon, Amanda E. Jargowsky, Evan G. Prasky, Edward V. Camp, Ashley Oliphant, Sean P. Powers, Steven B. Scyphers\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/faf.12846\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Depredation (the partial or complete removal of a hooked species by a non-target species) is a human–wildlife conflict as old as humans and the sea. In some ways, depredation is no different today than it was a century ago. But in many ways, this conflict has become more complicated. Following three decades of successful management, some US shark populations have begun to rebuild. However, many anglers attribute perceived increases in shark depredation to management measures, claiming they have led to ‘overpopulation’ of sharks and/or learned behaviour by sharks. We investigated whether these factors could explain the reported increases in depredation. Based on fishery-independent surveys, neither shark population increases nor learned behaviour by sharks is evident. However, increases in angler effort provide an alternative explanation that is not often considered. While far from a smoking gun, at least four themes emerge from this thought exercise. First, it is important to understand historical predator baselines. Second, it is important to acknowledge lifting baselines, that is, instances where previously depleted populations are recovering. Third, it is important to remember that there are many instances when stakeholder observations were initially misaligned with traditional scientific observations but were ultimately recognized as pivotal for filling data gaps. Finally, and perhaps most important, is the acknowledgement that perceived conflict is as potent as real conflict. Arguably, it may not matter if depredation has increased or decreased; the overwhelming perception from stakeholders is an increase in depredation, and this is the perceived (or real) conflict that must be addressed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":169,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fish and Fisheries\",\"volume\":\"25 5\",\"pages\":\"806-810\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fish and Fisheries\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faf.12846\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"FISHERIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fish and Fisheries","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faf.12846","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FISHERIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Depredation (the partial or complete removal of a hooked species by a non-target species) is a human–wildlife conflict as old as humans and the sea. In some ways, depredation is no different today than it was a century ago. But in many ways, this conflict has become more complicated. Following three decades of successful management, some US shark populations have begun to rebuild. However, many anglers attribute perceived increases in shark depredation to management measures, claiming they have led to ‘overpopulation’ of sharks and/or learned behaviour by sharks. We investigated whether these factors could explain the reported increases in depredation. Based on fishery-independent surveys, neither shark population increases nor learned behaviour by sharks is evident. However, increases in angler effort provide an alternative explanation that is not often considered. While far from a smoking gun, at least four themes emerge from this thought exercise. First, it is important to understand historical predator baselines. Second, it is important to acknowledge lifting baselines, that is, instances where previously depleted populations are recovering. Third, it is important to remember that there are many instances when stakeholder observations were initially misaligned with traditional scientific observations but were ultimately recognized as pivotal for filling data gaps. Finally, and perhaps most important, is the acknowledgement that perceived conflict is as potent as real conflict. Arguably, it may not matter if depredation has increased or decreased; the overwhelming perception from stakeholders is an increase in depredation, and this is the perceived (or real) conflict that must be addressed.
期刊介绍:
Fish and Fisheries adopts a broad, interdisciplinary approach to the subject of fish biology and fisheries. It draws contributions in the form of major synoptic papers and syntheses or meta-analyses that lay out new approaches, re-examine existing findings, methods or theory, and discuss papers and commentaries from diverse areas. Focal areas include fish palaeontology, molecular biology and ecology, genetics, biochemistry, physiology, ecology, behaviour, evolutionary studies, conservation, assessment, population dynamics, mathematical modelling, ecosystem analysis and the social, economic and policy aspects of fisheries where they are grounded in a scientific approach. A paper in Fish and Fisheries must draw upon all key elements of the existing literature on a topic, normally have a broad geographic and/or taxonomic scope, and provide general points which make it compelling to a wide range of readers whatever their geographical location. So, in short, we aim to publish articles that make syntheses of old or synoptic, long-term or spatially widespread data, introduce or consolidate fresh concepts or theory, or, in the Ghoti section, briefly justify preliminary, new synoptic ideas. Please note that authors of submissions not meeting this mandate will be directed to the appropriate primary literature.