Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Is the ocean food provision index biased?

Abstract

arising from B. S. Halpern et al. Nature 488, 615–620 (2012)10.1038/nature11397

How close to maximum sustainable food provision is current seafood harvest from the world’s oceans? Halpern et al.1 suggest that the answer is 25% from a global index of food provision, part of their multifaceted index of ocean health. Rigorous methods used for management, however, demonstrate that their food provision index is uncorrelated with actual food provision, and that global ocean food provision is in the range of 71–95%. Their results stem from an uncertain method of estimating maximum sustainable yield (MSY), and we believe that this approach should be avoided as a measure of food provision. There is a Reply to this Brief Communication Arising by Halpern, B. S. et al. Nature 495, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11975 (2013).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Contours of the Halpern et al.1 food provision index (0–100%) in relation to current catch and maximum catch ( Cmax).
Figure 2: Food provision indices (percentages) estimated using the Halpern et al.1 proxy, compared to food provision based on biomass data for 234 fisheries comprising 20–25% of global catch (circles, see Methods for details).

References

  1. Halpern, B. S. et al. An index to assess the health and benefits of the global ocean. Nature 488, 615–620 (2012)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Pauly, D. Focusing One’s Microscope: Daniel Pauly on the State of Global Fisheries http://blog.nature.org/2011/01/daniel-pauly-fish-stock-global-world-fisheries/ (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Worm, B. et al. Rebuilding global fisheries. Science 325, 578–585 (2009)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Froese, R. & Proelß, A. Rebuilding fish stocks no later than 2015: will Europe meet the deadline? Fish Fish. 11, 194–202 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sumaila, U. R. et al. Benefits of rebuilding global marine fisheries outweigh costs. PLoS ONE 7, e40542 (2012)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Arnason, R., Kelleher, K. & Willmann, R. The Sunken Billions. The Economic Justification for Fisheries Reform. (World Bank and FAO, 2008)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Costello, C. et al. Status and solutions for the world’s unassessed fisheries. Science 338, 517–520 (2012)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ryther, J. Photosynthesis and fish production in the sea. Science 166, 72–76 (1969)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Pauly, D. One hundred million tonnes of fish, and fisheries research. Fish. Res. 25, 25–38 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2012)

  11. Ricard, D., Minto, C., Baum, J. K. & Jensen, O. P. Examining the knowledge base and status of commercially exploited marine species with the RAM Legacy Stock Assessment Database. Fish Fish. 13, 380–398 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Branch, T. A., Jensen, O. P., Ricard, D., Ye, Y. & Hilborn, R. Contrasting global trends in marine fishery status obtained from catches and from stock assessments. Conserv. Biol. 25, 777–786 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Daan, N., Gislason, H., Pope, J. G. & Rice, J. C. Apocalypse in world fisheries? The reports of their death are greatly exaggerated. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 68, 1375–1378 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Carruthers, T. R., Walters, C. J. & McAllister, M. K. Evaluating methods that classify fisheries stock status using only fisheries catch data. Fish. Res. 119–120, 66–79 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hilborn, R. & Branch, T. A. Does catch reflect abundance? No, it is misleading. Nature 494, 303–306 (2013)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. Thorson, J. T., Cope, J. M., Branch, T. A. & Jensen, O. P. Spawning biomass reference points for exploited marine fishes, incorporating taxonomic and body size information. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 69, 1556–1568 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

T.A.B. designed the study, T.A.B. and D.J.H. analysed the data, and T.A.B. and R.H. discussed the results and wrote the paper together.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Trevor A. Branch.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Declared none.

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Branch, T., Hively, D. & Hilborn, R. Is the ocean food provision index biased?. Nature 495, E5–E6 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11974

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11974

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing