A critique of the balanced harvesting approach to fishing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The approach to fisheries termed “balanced harvesting” (BH) calls for fishing across the widest possible range of species, stocks, and sizes in an ecosystem, in proportion to their natural productivity, so that the relative size and species composition is maintained. Such fishing is proposed to result in higher catches with less negative impact on exploited populations and ecosystems. This study examines the models and the empirical evidence put forward in support of BH. It finds that the models used unrealistic settings with regard to life history (peak of cohort biomass at small sizes), response to fishing (strong compensation of fishing mortality by reduced natural mortality), and economics (uniform high cost of fishing and same ex-vessel price for all species and sizes), and that empirical evidence of BH is scarce and questionable. It concludes that evolutionary theory, population dynamics theory, ecosystem models with realistic assumptions and settings, and widespread empirical evidence do not support the BH proposal. Rather, this body of evidence suggests that BH will not help but will hinder the policy changes needed for the rebuilding of ecosystems, healthy fish populations, and sustainable fisheries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".