Cited by 9Marine and fisheries researchCoastal and Marine ManagementFish Ecology and Management Studies

Pelagic ecoregions: Operationalizing an ecosystem approach to fisheries management in the Atlantic Ocean

Open access
Todorović, Sara, Juan-Jordá, Maria José, Arrizabalaga, Haritz, Murua, Hilario·2019·Marine Policy

Abstract

Tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organizations have committed to adopting an ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAFM). Yet their progress has been relatively slow and patchy, lacking a long-term vision and a formalized plan to prescribe how fisheries will be managed from an ecosystem perspective. We argue that one of the impediments in this process has been the lack of well-defined spatial management units that are ecologically meaningful, as well as practical for fisheries management, to guide ecosystem-based planning, research and indicator assessments, to ultimately produce better integrated management advice. In this study, we propose seven potential ecoregions within the convention area of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The boundaries of the ecoregions rest on three pillars of information: the existing knowledge of biogeographic classifications of the pelagic environment, the spatial distribution of tuna and billfish species, and the spatial dynamics of the main fishing fleets targeting them. Each ecoregion is characterized by a set of ecologically meaningful biogeographic and oceanographic characteristics, tuna and billfish communities and fishing fleet patterns. The pelagic ecoregions proposed here aim to focus species- and fisheries-specific management of the tuna and billfish fisheries on specified regions. The proposed ecoregions represent an optimal, ecologically sound starting point, based on the best science available, to foster debate and consultative process in ICCAT for moving forward the implementation of the EAFM.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103700

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. United Nations, 1995, Highly Migr. Fish Species, 6th Sess., 40
  2. International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, 2017, vol. 2, 434

Cited by

Still being checked.

Authors
Todorović, S., Juan-Jordá, M. J., Arrizabalaga, H., & Murua, H.
Affiliations
  • Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (DE)
  • AZTI (ES)
Corresponding author
Todorović, Sara
Venue
Marine Policy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-11
Volume
109
Pages
103700
ISSN
0308-597X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2981737206
Cited by
9
References
36
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Marine Policy (publishedVersion)
  • AZTI Institutional Repository (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
  • MER Consortium
  • Erasmus Mundus Programme
  • EASME
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine and fisheries research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Coastal and Marine Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
Keywords
ecosystem approach to fisheries, billfish fisheries, ICCAT, biogeographic classification, Atlantic Ocean

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