Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 563

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing

Open access
Hobday, A.J., Smith, A.D.M., Stobutzki, I.C., Bulman, C., Daley, R., Dambacher, J.M., Deng, R.A., Dowdney, J., Fuller, M., Furlani, D., Griffiths, S.P., Johnson, D., Kenyon, R., Knuckey, I.A., Ling, S.D., Pitcher, R., Sainsbury, K.J., Sporcic, M., Smith, T., Turnbull, C., Walker, T.I., Wayte, S.E., Webb, H., Williams, A., Wise, B.S., Zhou, S.·2011·Fisheries Research

Abstract

Management of fisheries around the world is challenged by fishing impacts on habitats, bycatch species, threatened and endangered species, and even associated ecological communities. One response to these other factors has been a call for ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM), which demands consideration of the above non-target interactions. A challenge with implementation of EBFM is the scale and range of issues to be considered, all of which cannot be addressed at the same level of detail as for target species, due to data or time constraints. We developed an approach to progress the EBFM mandate in Australia, using a new ecological risk assessment framework applied to fisheries, termed Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing (ERAEF). Novel features of this framework include its hierarchical structure and its precautionary approach to uncertainty. The amount of information required increases through the hierarchy, and allows application in data-limited situations. The ERAEF framework has been applied to over 30 fisheries in Australia and elsewhere. The efficiencies in application of the hierarchical approach are illustrated by the south-east otter trawl fishery, where following Level 1 assessment of all components, an initial set of 600 species and 158 habitats was reduced to a group of concern of 159 species and 46 habitats using the Level 2 analysis, with the number of species of concern further reduced to 25 following Level 3 analysis. As a result of the assessments in Australia, management actions have been enacted for a range of the high risk species. Overall, the ERAEF approach offers a realistic method to assess ecological risk in an EBFM context, and has applicability in a wide range of fisheries. The interactive and inclusive nature of the approach also has the advantage of bringing stakeholders, scientists and managers together to develop management solutions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.fishres.2011.01.013

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 563

Metadata

Authors
Hobday, A. J., Smith, A. D. M., Stobutzki, I. C., Bulman, C., Daley, R., Dambacher, J. M., Deng, R. A., Dowdney, J., Fuller, M., Furlani, D., Griffiths, S. P., Johnson, D., Kenyon, R., Knuckey, I. A., Ling, S. D., Pitcher, R., Sainsbury, K. J., Sporcic, M., Smith, T., Turnbull, C., Walker, T. I., Wayte, S. E., Webb, H., Williams, A., Wise, B. S., & Zhou, S.
Venue
Fisheries Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-03
Volume
108
Issue
2-3
Pages
372-384
ISSN
0165-7836 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2110310854
Cited by
563
References
0
FWCI
27.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.fishres.2011.01.013
The paper
Hobday, A. J., Smith, A. D. M., Stobutzki, I. C., Bulman, C., Daley, R., Dambacher, J. M., Deng, R. A., Dowdney, J., Fuller, M., Furlani, D., Griffiths, S. P., Johnson, D., Kenyon, R., Knuckey, I. A., Ling, S. D., Pitcher, R., Sainsbury, K. J., Sporcic, M., Smith, T., . . . Zhou, S. (2011). Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing. Fisheries Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2011.01.013

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.