Cargando…

Age‐specific habitat preference, carrying capacity, and landscape structure determine the response of population spatial variability to fishing‐driven age truncation

1. Understanding the mechanisms underlying spatial variability of exploited fish is critical for the sustainable management of fish stocks. Empirical studies suggest that size‐selective fishing can elevate fish population spatial variability (i.e., more heterogeneous distribution) through age trunca...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tao, Hsiao‐Hang, Dur, Gaël, Ke, Po‐Ju, Souissi, Sami, Hsieh, Chih‐hao
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8207361/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34141223
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7486
_version_ 1783708760753045504
author Tao, Hsiao‐Hang
Dur, Gaël
Ke, Po‐Ju
Souissi, Sami
Hsieh, Chih‐hao
author_facet Tao, Hsiao‐Hang
Dur, Gaël
Ke, Po‐Ju
Souissi, Sami
Hsieh, Chih‐hao
author_sort Tao, Hsiao‐Hang
collection PubMed
description 1. Understanding the mechanisms underlying spatial variability of exploited fish is critical for the sustainable management of fish stocks. Empirical studies suggest that size‐selective fishing can elevate fish population spatial variability (i.e., more heterogeneous distribution) through age truncation, making the population less resilient to changing environment. However, species differ in how their spatial variability responds to age truncation and the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. 2. We hypothesize that age‐specific habitat preference, together with environmental carrying capacity and landscape structure, determines the response of population spatial variability to fishing‐induced age truncation. To test these hypotheses, we design an individual‐based model of an age‐structured fish population on a two‐dimensional landscape under size‐selective fishing. Individual fish reproduces and survives, and moves between habitats according to age‐specific habitat preference and density‐dependent habitat selection. 3. Population spatial variability elevates with increasing age truncation, and the response is stronger for populations with stronger age‐specific habitat preference. On a gradient landscape, reducing carrying capacity elevates the relative importance of density dependence in habitat selection, which weakens the response of spatial variability to age truncation for populations with strong age‐specific habitat preference. On a fragmented landscape, both populations with strong and weak age‐specific habitat preferences are restricted at local optimal habitats, and reducing carrying capacity weakens the responses of spatial variability to age truncation for both populations. 4. Synthesis and applications. We demonstrate that to track and predict the changes in population spatial variability under exploitation, it is essential to consider the interactive effects of age‐specific habitat preference, carrying capacity, and landscape structure. To improve spatial management in fisheries, it is crucial to enhance empirical and theoretical developments in the methodology to quantify age‐specific habitat preference of marine fish, and to understand how climatic change influences carrying capacity and landscape continuity.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8207361
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82073612021-06-16 Age‐specific habitat preference, carrying capacity, and landscape structure determine the response of population spatial variability to fishing‐driven age truncation Tao, Hsiao‐Hang Dur, Gaël Ke, Po‐Ju Souissi, Sami Hsieh, Chih‐hao Ecol Evol Original Research 1. Understanding the mechanisms underlying spatial variability of exploited fish is critical for the sustainable management of fish stocks. Empirical studies suggest that size‐selective fishing can elevate fish population spatial variability (i.e., more heterogeneous distribution) through age truncation, making the population less resilient to changing environment. However, species differ in how their spatial variability responds to age truncation and the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. 2. We hypothesize that age‐specific habitat preference, together with environmental carrying capacity and landscape structure, determines the response of population spatial variability to fishing‐induced age truncation. To test these hypotheses, we design an individual‐based model of an age‐structured fish population on a two‐dimensional landscape under size‐selective fishing. Individual fish reproduces and survives, and moves between habitats according to age‐specific habitat preference and density‐dependent habitat selection. 3. Population spatial variability elevates with increasing age truncation, and the response is stronger for populations with stronger age‐specific habitat preference. On a gradient landscape, reducing carrying capacity elevates the relative importance of density dependence in habitat selection, which weakens the response of spatial variability to age truncation for populations with strong age‐specific habitat preference. On a fragmented landscape, both populations with strong and weak age‐specific habitat preferences are restricted at local optimal habitats, and reducing carrying capacity weakens the responses of spatial variability to age truncation for both populations. 4. Synthesis and applications. We demonstrate that to track and predict the changes in population spatial variability under exploitation, it is essential to consider the interactive effects of age‐specific habitat preference, carrying capacity, and landscape structure. To improve spatial management in fisheries, it is crucial to enhance empirical and theoretical developments in the methodology to quantify age‐specific habitat preference of marine fish, and to understand how climatic change influences carrying capacity and landscape continuity. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC8207361/ /pubmed/34141223 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7486 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Tao, Hsiao‐Hang
Dur, Gaël
Ke, Po‐Ju
Souissi, Sami
Hsieh, Chih‐hao
Age‐specific habitat preference, carrying capacity, and landscape structure determine the response of population spatial variability to fishing‐driven age truncation
title Age‐specific habitat preference, carrying capacity, and landscape structure determine the response of population spatial variability to fishing‐driven age truncation
title_full Age‐specific habitat preference, carrying capacity, and landscape structure determine the response of population spatial variability to fishing‐driven age truncation
title_fullStr Age‐specific habitat preference, carrying capacity, and landscape structure determine the response of population spatial variability to fishing‐driven age truncation
title_full_unstemmed Age‐specific habitat preference, carrying capacity, and landscape structure determine the response of population spatial variability to fishing‐driven age truncation
title_short Age‐specific habitat preference, carrying capacity, and landscape structure determine the response of population spatial variability to fishing‐driven age truncation
title_sort age‐specific habitat preference, carrying capacity, and landscape structure determine the response of population spatial variability to fishing‐driven age truncation
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8207361/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34141223
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7486
work_keys_str_mv AT taohsiaohang agespecifichabitatpreferencecarryingcapacityandlandscapestructuredeterminetheresponseofpopulationspatialvariabilitytofishingdrivenagetruncation
AT durgael agespecifichabitatpreferencecarryingcapacityandlandscapestructuredeterminetheresponseofpopulationspatialvariabilitytofishingdrivenagetruncation
AT kepoju agespecifichabitatpreferencecarryingcapacityandlandscapestructuredeterminetheresponseofpopulationspatialvariabilitytofishingdrivenagetruncation
AT souissisami agespecifichabitatpreferencecarryingcapacityandlandscapestructuredeterminetheresponseofpopulationspatialvariabilitytofishingdrivenagetruncation
AT hsiehchihhao agespecifichabitatpreferencecarryingcapacityandlandscapestructuredeterminetheresponseofpopulationspatialvariabilitytofishingdrivenagetruncation