Assessing and protecting endangered marine species

By H. Powles, M. Bradford, R. Bradford, W. G. Doubleday, S. Innes, C. Levings. 2000

136 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bd8d3dc24e0c938a98159a90387a5c00c4dfbaa0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

1. N. Dulvy
2. S. Jennings
3. J. Reynolds
4. A. Grant
5. N. B. Goodwin
6. J. Porter
7. K. Lafferty
8. J. Ellis

In Global and Planetary Change

1. N. Dulvy
2. S. Jennings
3. J. Reynolds
4. A. Grant
5. N. B. Goodwin
6. J. A. Hutchings
7. J. Caddy
8. Peter J. S. Jones

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. N. Dulvy
2. S. Jennings
3. J. Reynolds
4. A. Grant
5. N. B. Goodwin
6. J. A. Hutchings
7. J. Ellis
8. Peter J. S. Jones

Citations in the corpus

• Methods of assessing extinction risk in marine fishes. (2004, background): “This has resulted in considerable discussion and some disagreement over their validity and utility (Mace and Hudson 1999; Matsuda et al. 2000; Powles et al. 2000; Reynolds et al. 2001, 2002; Dulvy et al. 2003).”
• Marine protected area strategies: issues, divergences and the search for middle ground (2004, background): “There are also concerns that some criteria may not be precautionary enough for marine species (Powles et al., 2000), and it has been argued that increases in the population-decline thresholds used to assign marine fish species to at-risk categories would be inconsistent with the precautionary…”
• Estimating the rate of quasi-extinction of the Australian grey nurse shark (Carcharias taurus) population using deterministic age- and stage-classified models (2004, background): “In contrast to many terrestrial species, marine species have traditionally been regarded as having high productivity and therefore, an inherent capacity to recover rapidly from severe depletion (Powles et al., 2000).”
• Conservation biology of marine fishes: perceptions and caveats regarding assignment of extinction risk (2001, background): “There is a general impression that popu lation sizes of marine fishes are more variable than those of freshwater and anadromous fishes (e.g., Musick 1999; Powles et al. 2000), leading to the possibility that 10-year or three-generation declines of more than 50 or 80% (see crite rion A in Table 1) mi”
• Marine Fish Population Collapses: Consequences for Recovery and Extinction Risk (2004, background): “Although rapid recovery has been hypothesized to be associated with high fecundity (Musick 1999a, Powles et al. 2000), this postulate enjoys neither theoretical (Hutchings 2001a, 2001b, Sadovy 2001, Dulvy et al. 2003) nor empirical support (Reynolds et al. 2002).”
• An overview of recent global experience with recovery plans for depleted marine resources and suggested guidelines for recovery planning (2004, background): “The international context for plans to prevent extinction as opposed to commercial recovery, is the Biodiversity Convention and CITES, and a number of papers (e.g. Musick, 1999; Roberts and Hawkins, 1999; Musik et al., 2000; Powles et al., 2000; Hutchings, 2001), review the probability of extinction”
• Does terrestrial epidemiology apply to marine systems (2004, background): “In marine environments, overharvesting appears to have the strongest impact, followed by eutrophication and introduced species [ 49 ].”