Search

Research on the values of fish populations and fisheries has primarily focused on bio-economic aspects; a more nuanced and multidimensional perspective is mostly neglected. Although a range of social aspects is increasingly being considered in fisheries research, there is still no clear understanding as to how to include these additional values within management policies nor is there a cogent appreciation of the major knowledge gaps that should be tackled by future research. This paper results from a workshop held during the 50th anniversary symposium of the Fisheries Society of the British Isles at the University of Exeter, UK, in July 2017. Here, we aim to highlight the current knowledge gaps on the values of fish populations and fisheries thus directing future research. To this end, we present eight questions that are deeply relevant to understanding the values of fish populations and fisheries. These can be applied to all habitats and fisheries, including freshwater, estuarine and marine.

Research on the values of fish populations and fisheries has primarily focused on bio-economic aspects; a more nuanced and multidimensional perspective is mostly neglected. Although a range of social aspects is increasingly being considered in fisheries research, there is still no clear understanding as to how to include these additional values within management policies nor is there a cogent appreciation of the major knowledge gaps that should be tackled by future research. This paper results from a workshop held during the 50th anniversary symposium of the Fisheries Society of the British Isles at the University of Exeter, UK, in July 2017. Here, we aim to highlight the current knowledge gaps on the values of fish populations and fisheries thus directing future research. To this end, we present eight questions that are deeply relevant to understanding the values of fish populations and fisheries. These can be applied to all habitats and fisheries, including freshwater, estuarine and marine.

In 2010, an international group of 35 sea turtle researchers refined an initial list of more than 200 research questions into 20 metaquestions that were considered key for management and conservation of sea turtles. These were classified under 5 categories: reproductive biology, biogeography, population ecology, threats and conservation strategies. To obtain a picture of how research is being focused towards these key questions, we undertook a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature (2014 and 2015) attributing papers to the original 20 questions. In total, we reviewed 605 articles in full and from these 355 (59%) were judged to substantively address the 20 key questions, with others focusing on basic science and monitoring. Progress to answering the 20 questions was not uniform, and there were biases regarding focal turtle species, geographic scope and publication outlet. Whilst it offers some meaningful indications as to effort, quantifying peer-reviewed literature output is obviously not the only, and possibly not the best, metric for understanding progress towards informing key conservation and management goals. Along with the literature review, an international group based on the original project consortium was assigned to critically summarise recent progress towards answering each of the 20 questions. We found that significant research is being expended towards global priorities for management and conservation of sea turtles. Although highly variable, there has been significant progress in all the key questions identified in 2010. Undertaking this critical review has highlighted that it may be timely to undertake one or more new prioritizing exercises. For this to have maximal benefit we make a range of recommendations for its execution. These include a far greater engagement with social sciences, widening the pool of contributors and focussing the questions, perhaps disaggregating ecology and conservation.

In 2010, an international group of 35 sea turtle researchers refined an initial list of more than 200 research questions into 20 metaquestions that were considered key for management and conservation of sea turtles. These were classified under 5 categories: reproductive biology, biogeography, population ecology, threats and conservation strategies. To obtain a picture of how research is being focused towards these key questions, we undertook a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature (2014 and 2015) attributing papers to the original 20 questions. In total, we reviewed 605 articles in full and from these 355 (59%) were judged to substantively address the 20 key questions, with others focusing on basic science and monitoring. Progress to answering the 20 questions was not uniform, and there were biases regarding focal turtle species, geographic scope and publication outlet. Whilst it offers some meaningful indications as to effort, quantifying peer-reviewed literature output is obviously not the only, and possibly not the best, metric for understanding progress towards informing key conservation and management goals. Along with the literature review, an international group based on the original project consortium was assigned to critically summarise recent progress towards answering each of the 20 questions. We found that significant research is being expended towards global priorities for management and conservation of sea turtles. Although highly variable, there has been significant progress in all the key questions identified in 2010. Undertaking this critical review has highlighted that it may be timely to undertake one or more new prioritizing exercises. For this to have maximal benefit we make a range of recommendations for its execution. These include a far greater engagement with social sciences, widening the pool of contributors and focussing the questions, perhaps disaggregating ecology and conservation.

In 2010, an international group of 35 sea turtle researchers refined an initial list of more than 200 research questions into 20 metaquestions that were considered key for management and conservation of sea turtles. These were classified under 5 categories: reproductive biology, biogeography, population ecology, threats and conservation strategies. To obtain a picture of how research is being focused towards these key questions, we undertook a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature (2014 and 2015) attributing papers to the original 20 questions. In total, we reviewed 605 articles in full and from these 355 (59%) were judged to substantively address the 20 key questions, with others focusing on basic science and monitoring. Progress to answering the 20 questions was not uniform, and there were biases regarding focal turtle species, geographic scope and publication outlet. Whilst it offers some meaningful indications as to effort, quantifying peer-reviewed literature output is obviously not the only, and possibly not the best, metric for understanding progress towards informing key conservation and management goals. Along with the literature review, an international group based on the original project consortium was assigned to critically summarise recent progress towards answering each of the 20 questions. We found that significant research is being expended towards global priorities for management and conservation of sea turtles. Although highly variable, there has been significant progress in all the key questions identified in 2010. Undertaking this critical review has highlighted that it may be timely to undertake one or more new prioritizing exercises. For this to have maximal benefit we make a range of recommendations for its execution. These include a far greater engagement with social sciences, widening the pool of contributors and focussing the questions, perhaps disaggregating ecology and conservation.

In 2010, an international group of 35 sea turtle researchers refined an initial list of more than 200 research questions into 20 metaquestions that were considered key for management and conservation of sea turtles. These were classified under 5 categories: reproductive biology, biogeography, population ecology, threats and conservation strategies. To obtain a picture of how research is being focused towards these key questions, we undertook a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature (2014 and 2015) attributing papers to the original 20 questions. In total, we reviewed 605 articles in full and from these 355 (59%) were judged to substantively address the 20 key questions, with others focusing on basic science and monitoring. Progress to answering the 20 questions was not uniform, and there were biases regarding focal turtle species, geographic scope and publication outlet. Whilst it offers some meaningful indications as to effort, quantifying peer-reviewed literature output is obviously not the only, and possibly not the best, metric for understanding progress towards informing key conservation and management goals. Along with the literature review, an international group based on the original project consortium was assigned to critically summarise recent progress towards answering each of the 20 questions. We found that significant research is being expended towards global priorities for management and conservation of sea turtles. Although highly variable, there has been significant progress in all the key questions identified in 2010. Undertaking this critical review has highlighted that it may be timely to undertake one or more new prioritizing exercises. For this to have maximal benefit we make a range of recommendations for its execution. These include a far greater engagement with social sciences, widening the pool of contributors and focussing the questions, perhaps disaggregating ecology and conservation.

Sea turtles are known to perform long-distance, oceanic migrations between disparate feeding areas and breeding sites, some of them located on isolated oceanic islands. These migrations demonstrate impressive navigational abilities, but the sensory mechanisms used are still largely unknown. Green turtles breeding at Ascension Island perform long oceanic migrations (>2200 km) between foraging areas along the Brazilian coast and the isolated island. By performing displacement experiments of female green turtles tracked by satellite telemetry in the waters around Ascension Island we investigated which strategies most probably are used by the turtles in locating the island. In the present paper we analysed the search trajectories in relation to alternative navigation strategies including the use of global geomagnetic cues, ocean currents, celestial cues and wind. The results suggest that the turtles did not use chemical information transported with ocean currents. Neither did the results indicate that the turtles use true bi-coordinate geomagnetic navigation nor did they use indirect navigation with respect to any of the available magnetic gradients (total field intensity, horizontal field intensity, vertical field intensity, inclination and declination) or celestial cues. The female green turtles successfully locating Ascension Island seemed to use a combination of searching followed by beaconing, since they searched for sensory contact with the island until they reached positions NW and N of the Island and from there presumably used cues transported by wind to locate the island during the final stages of the search.

Albatrosses and sea turtles are known to perform extremely long-distance journeys between disparate feeding areas and breeding sites located on small, isolated, oceanic islands or at specific coastal sites. These oceanic journeys, performed mainly over or through apparently featureless mediums, indicate impressive navigational abilities, and the sensory mechanisms used are still largely unknown. This research used three different approaches to investigate whether bi-coordinate navigation based on magnetic field gradients is likely to explain the navigational performance of wandering albatrosses in the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans and of green turtles breeding on Ascension Island in the South Atlantic Ocean. The possibility that magnetic field parameters can potentially be used in a bi-coordinate magnetic map by wandering albatrosses in their foraging area was investigated by analysing satellite telemetry data published in the literature. The possibilities for using bi-coordinate magnetic navigation varied widely between different areas of the Southern Oceans, indicating that a common mechanism, based on a bi-coordinate geomagnetic map alone, was unlikely for navigation in these areas. In the second approach, satellite telemetry was used to investigate whether Ascension Island green turtles use magnetic information for navigation during migration from their breeding island to foraging areas in Brazilian coastal waters. Disturbing magnets were applied to the heads and carapaces of the turtles, but these appeared to have little effect on their ability to navigate. The only possible effect observed was that some of the turtles with magnets attached were heading for foraging areas slightly south of the control turtles along the Brazilian coast. In the third approach, breeding female green turtles were deliberately displaced in the waters around Ascension Island to investigate which cues these turtles might use to locate and return to the island; the results suggested

Satellite telemetry was used to record the submergence duration of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) as they migrated from Ascension Island to Brazil (N=12 individuals) while time/depth recorders (TDRs) were used to examine the depth distribution and dive profiles of individuals returning to Ascension Island to nest after experimental displacement (N=5 individuals). Satellite telemetry revealed that most submergences were short (<5 min) but that some submergences were longer (>20 min), particularly at night. TDRs revealed that much of the time was spent conducting short (24 min), shallow (approximately 0.91.5 m) dives, consistent with predictions for optimisation of near-surface travelling, while long (typically 2030 min), deep (typically 1020 m) dives had a distinctive profile found in other marine reptiles. These results suggest that green turtles crossing the Atlantic do not behave invariantly, but instead alternate between periods of travelling just beneath the surface and diving deeper. These deep dives may have evolved to reduce silhouetting against the surface, which would make turtles more susceptible to visual predators such as large sharks.

Aim Levels of sea turtle bycatch in the Mediterranean are thought to be unsustainable. We provide a comprehensive overview of adult green turtle (Chelonia mydas) distribution during nesting, migration and foraging phases, highlighting transitory as well as residential areas of high use to facilitate adequate protection for this long‐lived, migratory species. Location Mediterranean Sea. Methods Thirty‐four females were satellite tracked from breeding grounds in the four countries with major nesting (Cyprus, Turkey, Israel and Syria) for a total of 8521 (mean: 251) tracking days in a collaborative effort to summarize the most comprehensive set of distribution data thus far assembled for this species in the Mediterranean. Results Ten foraging grounds are identified, with two major hotspots in Libya accounting for >50% of turtles tracked to conclusive endpoints. The coastlines of Egypt and Libya contain high densities of migrating turtles following the nesting season, particularly July–September, and likely also pre‐nesting (April–June). A high‐use seasonal pelagic corridor running south‐west from Turkey and Cyprus to Egypt is also evident, used by >50% of all tracked turtles. Main conclusions Bycatch levels and mortality rates for the key foraging areas and high‐density seasonal pathways identified here are largely unknown and should be investigated as a priority. We recommend that the Gulf of Sirte in Libya be explored as a potential biodiversity hotspot and considered for proposal as a marine protected area (MPA). Green turtle fidelity to nesting beaches, foraging areas and migratory pathways renders them vulnerable to localized threats but enables targeted mitigation measures and protection.