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.

Coherent assessments of Europe’s marine fishes show regional divergence and megafauna loss

A Corrigendum to this article was published on 12 June 2017

Abstract

Europe has a long tradition of exploiting marine fishes and is promoting marine economic activity through its Blue Growth strategy. This increase in anthropogenic pressure, along with climate change, threatens the biodiversity of fishes and food security. Here, we examine the conservation status of 1,020 species of European marine fishes and identify factors that contribute to their extinction risk. Large fish species (greater than 1.5 m total length) are most at risk; half of these are threatened with extinction, predominantly sharks, rays and sturgeons. This analysis was based on the latest International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) European regional Red List of marine fishes, which was coherent with assessments of the status of fish stocks carried out independently by fisheries management agencies: no species classified by IUCN as threatened were considered sustainable by these agencies. A remarkable geographic divergence in stock status was also evident: in northern Europe, most stocks were not overfished, whereas in the Mediterranean Sea, almost all stocks were overfished. As Europe proceeds with its sustainable Blue Growth agenda, two main issues stand out as needing priority actions in relation to its marine fishes: the conservation of marine fish megafauna and the sustainability of Mediterranean fish stocks.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Factors that affect the conservation status of European fishes.
Figure 2: Geographical distribution of the relative exploitation rate for 115 European fish stocks.
Figure 3: Geographical distribution of the relative biomass for 115 European fish stocks.
Figure 4: Performance of the IUCN Red List in relation to stock status.

References

  1. Beaugrand, G., Edwards, M., Raybaud, V., Goberville, E. & Kirby, R. R. Future vulnerability of marine biodiversity compared with contemporary and past changes. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 695–701 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Eschmeyer, W. N., Fricke, R., Fong, J. D. & Polack, D. A. Marine fish diversity: history of knowledge and discovery (Pisces). Zootaxa 2525, 19–50 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. O’Connor, S., Ono, R. & Clarkson, C. Pelagic fishing at 42,000 years before the present and the maritime skills of modern humans. Science 334, 1117–1121 (2011).

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lotze, H. K. & Worm, B. Historical baselines for large marine animals. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 254–262 (2009).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Poulsen, B. The variability of fisheries and fish populations prior to industrialized fishing: an appraisal of the historical evidence. J. Marine Syst. 79, 327–332 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lotze, H. K., Coll, M., Magera, A. M., Ward-Paige, C. & Airoldi, L. Recovery of marine animal populations and ecosystems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 595–605 (2011).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. McCauley, D. J. et al. Marine defaunation: animal loss in the global ocean. Science 347, 1255641 (2015).

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ehlers, P. Blue growth and ocean governance—how to balance the use and the protection of the seas. WMU J. Marit. Aff. 15, 187–203 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Godfray, H. C. J. et al. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812–818 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jennings, S. et al. Aquatic food security: insights into challenges and solutions from an analysis of interactions between fisheries, aquaculture, food safety, human health, fish and human welfare, economy and environment. Fish Fish. 17, 893–938 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cheung, W. W., Watson, R. & Pauly, D. Signature of ocean warming in global fisheries catch. Nature 497, 365–368 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Poloczanska, E. S. et al. Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 919–925 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Halpern, B. S. et al. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319, 948–952 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nieto, A . et al. European Red List of Marine Fishes (Publications Office of the European Union, 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rice, J. C. & Legacè, È. When control rules collide: a comparison of fisheries management reference points and IUCN criteria for assessing risk of extinction. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 64, 718–722 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Punt, A. E. Extinction of marine renewable resources: a demographic analysis. Popul. Ecol. 42, 19–27 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dulvy, N. K., Jennings, S., Goodwin, N. B., Grant, A. & Reynolds, J. D. Comparison of threat and exploitation status in north-east Atlantic marine populations. J. Appl. Ecol. 42, 883–891 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Davies, T. D. & Baum, J. K. Extinction risk and overfishing: reconciling conservation and fisheries perspectives on the status of marine fishes. Sci. Rep. 2, 561 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Polidoro, B. et al. Patterns of extinction risk and threat for marine vertebrates and habitat-forming species in the tropical eastern Pacific. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 448, 93–104 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Polidoro, B. A. et al. The status of marine biodiversity in the eastern central Atlantic (West and Central Africa). Aquat. Conserv. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2744 (2017).

  21. Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A.-L., Zeileis, A. & Hothorn, T. Bias in random forest variable importance measures: illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinformatics 8, 25 (2007).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Johnson, C. N. Determinants of loss of mammal species during the Late Quaternary ‘megafauna’ extinctions: life history and ecology, but not body size. Proc. R. Soc. Lon. B 269, 2221–2227 (2002).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Payne, J. L., Bush, A. M., Heim, N. A., Knope, M. L. & McCauley, D. J. Ecological selectivity of the emerging mass extinction in the oceans. Science 353, 1284–1286 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Reynolds, J. D., Dulvy, N. K., Goodwin, N. B. & Hutchings, J. A. Biology of extinction risk in marine fishes. Proc. R. Soc. Lon. B 272, 2337–2344 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Juan-Jordá, M. J., Mosqueira, I., Freire, J. & Dulvy, N. K. Population declines of tuna and relatives depend on their speed of life. Proc. R. Soc. Lon. B 282, 20150322 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Jennings, S. et al. Global-scale predictions of community and ecosystem properties from simple ecological theory. Proc. R. Soc. Lon. B 275, 1375–1383 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Field, I. C., Meekan, M. G., Buckworth, R. C. & Bradshaw, C. J. Susceptibility of sharks, rays and chimaeras to global extinction. Adv. Mar. Biol. 56, 275–363 (2009).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Olden, J. D., Hogan, Z. S. & Zanden, M. Small fish, big fish, red fish, blue fish: size-biased extinction risk of the world’s freshwater and marine fishes. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 16, 694–701 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fernandes, P. G. & Cook, R. M. Reversal of fish stock decline in the northeast Atlantic. Curr. Biol. 23, 1432–1437 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Vasilakopoulos, P., Maravelias, C. D. & Tserpes, G. The alarming decline of Mediterranean fish stocks. Curr. Biol. 24, 1643–1648 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Savage, V. M., Gillooly, J. F., Brown, J. H., West, G. B. & Charnov, E. L. Effects of body size and temperature on population growth. Am. Nat. 163, 429–441 (2004).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hutchings, J. A., Myers, R. A., García, V. B., Lucifora, L. O. & Kuparinen, A. Life-history correlates of extinction risk and recovery potential. Ecol. Appl. 22, 1061–1067 (2012).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Micheli, F. et al. Cumulative human impacts on Mediterranean and Black Sea marine ecosystems: assessing current pressures and opportunities. PLoS ONE 8, e79889 (2013).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak (WGNSSK) ICES CM 2015/ACOM (ICES, 2015).

  35. Borges, L. The evolution of a discard policy in Europe. Fish Fish. 16, 534–540 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Baudron, A. R. & Fernandes, P. G. Adverse consequences of stock recovery: European hake, a new “choke” species under a discard ban? Fish Fish. 16, 563–575 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Daskalov, G. M., Grishin, A. N., Rodionov, S. & Mihneva, V. Trophic cascades triggered by overfishing reveal possible mechanisms of ecosystem regime shifts. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 10518–10523 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Eschmeyer, W. & Fong, J. Catalog of Fishes (California Academy of Sciences, 2015); http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp

  39. Freyhof, J & Brooks, E. European Red List of Freshwater Fishes (IUCN, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  40. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. 2nd edn (IUCN Species Survival Commission, 2012).

  41. Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional and National Levels: Version 4.0 (IUCN, 2012).

  42. Breiman, L. Random forests. Machine Learning 45, 5–32 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Breiman, L ., Friedman, J. H ., Olshen, R. A. & Stone, C. J. Classification and Regression Trees (Chapman & Hall, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  44. De’ath, G. & Fabricius, K. E. Classification and regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology 81, 3178–3192 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2013); http://www.R-project.org/

  46. Fielding, A. H. & Bell, J. F. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ. Conserv. 24, 38–49 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Liaw, A. & Wiener, M. Classification and regression by randomForest. R News 2, 18–22 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Maunder, M. N. in Encyclopedia of Ecology (eds Sven Erik, J. & Brian, F. ) 2292–2296 (Academic, 2008).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  49. Flood, M . et al. Status of Key Australian Fish Stocks Reports 2014 (Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Sparre, P . & Venema, S. C. Introduction to Tropical Fish Stock Assessment: Part I-Manual Fisheries Technical Paper 306/1 (FAO, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

P.G.F. and R.C. received funding from the Marine Alliance for Science and Technology for Scotland (MASTS) pooling initiative, funded by the Scottish Funding Council (grant reference HR09011) and contributing institutions. The European Red List of marine fishes was a project funded by the European Commission (Directorate General for the Environment under service contract number 070307/2011/607526/SER/B.3).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

P.G.F. drafted the text, conducted the RF analysis, and produced all the figures and Supplementary Tables 2, 3 and 4. P.G.F., K.E.C., G.M.R., A.N. and M.G.C. were responsible for determining content and discussion of analyses. A.N. coordinated the European Red List of marine fishes project and K.E.C. manages IUCN’s Marine Biodiversity Unit. Red List workshops and assessment reviews were organized and coordinated by K.E.C., N.K.D., J.M.L., R.A.P., G.M.R. and R.W. G.M.R. compiled the variables used in the RF analysis, and drafted components of the main text and methods. A.N. and M.G.C. drafted components of the main text and methods, and together with G.M.R. composed Supplementary Table 1. P.V., C.D.M., R.M.C., N.K.D., R.A.P., M.K., D.P., E.D.F., A.B.F., B.A.P., J.M.L., P.L. and F.U. edited drafts. All authors (except C.D.M. and P.V.) participated in Red List workshops and/or contributed to the IUCN assessments. P.V. and C.D.M. collated the Mediterranean stock assessment data.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul G. Fernandes.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figure 1 and supplementary Tables 1–4 (PDF 539 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fernandes, P., Ralph, G., Nieto, A. et al. Coherent assessments of Europe’s marine fishes show regional divergence and megafauna loss. Nat Ecol Evol 1, 0170 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0170

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0170

Further reading

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