title: The dangers of ignoring stock complexity in fishery management: the case of the North Sea cod.
abstract: The plight of the marine fisheries is attracting increasing attention as unsustainably high exploitation levels, exacerbated by more extreme climatic conditions, are driving stocks to the point of collapse. The North Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), a species which until recently formed a major component of the demersal fisheries, has undergone significant declines across its range. The North Sea stock is typical of many, with a spawning stock biomass that has remained below the safe biological limit since 2000 and recruitment levels near the lowest on record. Cod within the North Sea are currently managed as a single stock, and yet mounting empirical evidence supports the existence of a metapopulation of regionally variable, genetically distinct, sub-stocks. Applying the same management strategies to multiple stocks that differ in their resilience to exploitation inevitably results in the overfishing and likely collapse of the weaker components. Indeed, recent studies have identified two North Sea spawning stocks that have undergone disproportionally large collapses with very substantial reductions in egg production. Similarly affected cod stocks in the northwest Atlantic have shown little evidence of recovery, despite fishery closures. The possible implications of ignoring sub-structuring within management units for biocomplexity, local adaptation and ecosystem stability are considered.
authors.affiliation: Evolutionary Biology Group, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK. w.f.hutchinson@hull.ac.uk
authors.forename: William F
authors.initials: WF
authors.lastname: Hutchinson
mesh_terms: D000220:Adaptation, Biological; D000818:Animals; D003247:Conservation of Natural Resources; D005398:Fisheries; D048389:Gadus morhua / Q000235:genetics; D009659:North Sea; D011157:Population Dynamics
references.citation: Mol Ecol. 2007 Nov;16(22):4674-83
references.pmid: 17922814
references.citation: Science. 2005 Jun 10;308(5728):1621-3
references.pmid: 15947186
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 May 27;100(11):6564-8
references.pmid: 12743372
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2008 Jul 7;275(1642):1543-8
references.pmid: 18397869
references.citation: Nature. 2003 Dec 11;426(6967):661-4
references.pmid: 14668864
references.citation: Behav Genet. 2008 Jan;38(1):76-81
references.pmid: 17978867
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2008 Jul;11(7):682-9
references.pmid: 18371089
references.citation: Ecol Appl. 2006 Dec;16(6):2276-92
references.pmid: 17205904
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1980 Sep;77(9):5385-9
references.pmid: 6933563
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Oct 22;270(1529):2125-32
references.pmid: 14561275
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2008 Apr;23(4):202-10
references.pmid: 18308421
references.citation: Evolution. 2007 Sep;61(9):2154-64
references.pmid: 17767587
references.citation: Nat Rev Genet. 2008 Jun;9(6):421-32
references.pmid: 18463665
references.citation: Heredity (Edinb). 2004 Aug;93(2):208-14
references.pmid: 15241459
references.citation: Science. 2007 Nov 23;318(5854):1247-8
references.pmid: 18033868
references.citation: Science. 2004 Jul 16;305(5682):402-4
references.pmid: 15218093