Give Shark Sanctuaries a Chance
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Several developing nations have established shark sanctuaries, most commonly in the form of a moratorium on both commercial shark fishing and the export of shark products in Exclusive Economic Zones ([ 1 ][1]). In her Letter Shark sanctuaries: Substance or spin? (21 December 2012, p. [1538][2]), L. N. K. Davidson raises concerns that this ambitious strategy might be doomed to exist only on paper and could discourage investments in other types of shark fisheries management. We agree that enforcement will determine whether these shark sanctuaries live up to their promise, as is true of any new management regime. We disagree, however, with the argument that shark sanctuaries are more challenging to enforce or are less likely to be successful than typical fisheries management strategies, especially considering that even basic information such as fishery catch is often unknown and underestimated in developing countries ([ 2 ][3]). Shark fisheries management is notoriously difficult and resource intensive, owing to the extreme vulnerability of sharks to over-exploitation ([ 1 ][1]). The countries that have successfully managed shark fisheries all possess substantial research, assessment, monitoring, and enforcement capacity devoted to fisheries management ([ 1 ][1]). Developing nations typically have much smaller fisheries management capacity; what they do have is national capacity to detect illicit trade of contraband items (i.e., police, maritime authority, port authority, and customs). By making all shark products illegal, national authorities can work with their fisheries agencies to enforce the moratorium. Enforcing catch or size limits on shark fisheries is more complicated and will generally fall almost entirely under the purview of the fisheries agency on its own. There is cause for optimism about the conservation potential of well-enforced shark sanctuaries nested within broader international management efforts. Smaller-scale marine protected areas have been shown to benefit certain inshore shark species, while other species tend to return to certain areas on a regular basis ([ 3 ][4]–[ 6 ][5]). These studies suggest that large protected areas may benefit these populations and match biological and governance scales. Well-enforced shark sanctuaries clearly have great potential for shark conservation, and we suggest that the international community and funding agencies should help those developing nations that pursue this approach to ensure that this promise is realized. 1. [↵][6] 1. C. A. Ward-Paige 2. et al ., J. Fish. Biol. 80, 5 (2012). [OpenUrl][7] 2. [↵][8] 1. K. Kelleher , Discards in the world's marine fisheries: An update (FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 470, Rome, 2005); [www.fao.org/docrep/008/y5936e/y5936e00.htm][9]. 3. [↵][10] 1. M. E. Bond 2. et al ., PLoS One 7, 3 (2012). [OpenUrl][11] 4. 1. W. D. Robbins 2. et al ., Curr. Biol. 16, 23 (2006). [OpenUrl][12][CrossRef][13] 5. 1. R. E. Hueter 2. et al ., J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 35, 239 (2005). [OpenUrl][14] 6. [↵][15] 1. C. A. Ward-Paige 2. et al ., PLoS One 5, 8 (2010). [OpenUrl][16] [1]: #ref-1 [2]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.338.6114.1538 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #ref-6 [6]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [7]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJ.%2BFish.%2BBiol.%26rft.volume%253D80%26rft.spage%253D5%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [8]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [9]: http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y5936e/y5936e00.htm [10]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [11]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DPLoS%2BOne%26rft.volume%253D7%26rft.spage%253D3%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [12]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCurr.%2BBiol.%26rft.volume%253D16%26rft.spage%253D23%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252Fj.cub.2005.12.009%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [13]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.cub.2005.12.009&link_type=DOI [14]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJ.%2BNorthw.%2BAtl.%2BFish.%2BSci.%26rft.volume%253D35%26rft.spage%253D239%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [15]: #xref-ref-6-1 View reference 6 in text [16]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DPLoS%2BOne%26rft.volume%253D5%26rft.spage%253D8%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 0,020 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».