Ocean eddies, predator pits and bluefin tuna: Implications of an inferred 'low risk-limited payoff' reproductive scheme of a (former) archetypical top predator

Andrew Bakun

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Scopus citations

Abstract

The conventional view of the reproductive ecology of bluefin tunas (Thunnus thynnus, Thunnus orientalis, Thunnus maccoyii) leads to a conceptual paradox. Simple arithmetic yields an expectation for wide variation in annual reproductive success. However, the historical record does not support this prediction. A conclusion would seem to be that a much stronger than usual density dependence must be acting. It is here argued that this strong density dependence may likely occur within small strongly convergent segments of energetically forced ocean eddy structures. Success of the implied ecological scenario requires spawning schools of sufficient size to generate sufficiently copious reproductive product to circumvent resident predator pits, while exerting sufficient predatory loss on resident predators to facilitate this circumvention. This in turn implies existence of a dangerous 'precipice' in the form of self-enhancing feedback loop, lurking unperceived beyond the range of historical experience, and a need for a particular degree of precaution in managing the exploitation of this iconic species.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)424-438
Number of pages15
JournalFish and Fisheries
Volume14
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2013

Keywords

  • Bluefin tuna
  • Density dependence
  • Feedback loop
  • Fishery exploitation
  • Reproductive success
  • Spawning strategy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Aquatic Science
  • Oceanography
  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Ocean eddies, predator pits and bluefin tuna: Implications of an inferred 'low risk-limited payoff' reproductive scheme of a (former) archetypical top predator'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this