Search

In the scientific literature on fisheries, the concept of community is often used broadly to indicate a place-based group whose members are dedicated to fisheries and have relatively homogeneous economic, social, and cultural interests. However, this categorical perspective to scope a "fishing community" is not necessarily an insightful approach to explore diverse social relationships with the marine environment, fishwork, and management in a practical context, and risks mismatches with science-based recommendations for management and policy. Drawing from ethnographic work, we highlight different historical and cultural dynamics from four case studies from fisheries in northwest Mexico. We identify key factors that help contextualize fishwork relationships, related to the importance of fishing practices on worldviews, daily routines, and income. These are used to derive three configurations (livelihood, way of life, and job) that describe and give analytical content to the notion of these fishing communities. Our use of a typology is not intended to generalize them or provide universal categories, but rather to convey to a broad range of fisheries scientists the importance of considering social contexts in the places in which we work and learn, and a set of guiding questions that may help in this regard. Contextualizing the importance of historical and cultural factors in scoping community units beyond occupational or geographical characteristics is essential for identifying and addressing (in)equitable processes and outcomes in fisheries sectors, research, and management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

No-take marine reserves can be powerful management tools, but only if they are well designed and effectively managed. We review how ecological guidelines for improving marine reserve design can be adapted based on an area’s unique evolutionary, oceanic, and ecological characteristics in the Gulf of California, Mexico. We provide ecological guidelines to maximize benefits for fisheries management, biodiversity conservation and climate change adaptation. These guidelines include: representing 30% of each major habitat (and multiple examples of each) in marine reserves within each of three biogeographic subregions; protecting critical areas in the life cycle of focal species (spawning and nursery areas) and sites with unique biodiversity; and establishing reserves in areas where local threats can be managed effectively. Given that strong, asymmetric oceanic currents reverse direction twice a year, to maximize connectivity on an ecological time scale, reserves should be spaced less than 50-200 km apart depending on the planktonic larval duration of target species; and reserves should be located upstream of fishing sites, taking the reproductive timing of focal species in consideration. Reserves should be established for the long term, preferably permanently, since full recovery of all fisheries species is likely to take > 25 years. Reserve size should be based on movement patterns of focal species, although marine reserves > 10 km long are likely to protect ~ 80% of fish species. Since climate change will affect species’ geographic range, larval duration, growth, reproduction, abundance, and distribution of key recruitment habitats, these guidelines may require further modifications to maintain ecosystem function in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]