Nice paper. We recently published a somewhat related paper for the Caribbean region in which we arrive at the same conclusion: reef fish (community-wide) size-based metrics are more sensitive and specific indicators of fishing effects than fish biomass. However, we used average fish weight, a simpler size-based metric than the size-spectra slope, as our indicator. Clearly the two regions are quite different, but I am quite curious as to whether you think that your general conclusions would have changed had you used average fish weight instead. Similar to the size-spectra slope, average fish weight will also be predictably sensitive to changes in the relative abundance of both large and small bodied species. I am particularly curious because we had originally considered using size-spectra slopes for the aforementioned paper, but ended up going with the simpler metric because both metrics were so highly correlated in our system that it was not clear to us what the added value was for cross-sites comparisons (at least from a practical point of view - I understand the value of the theoretical framework), when individual site-level size spectra are not examined to help interpret slope changes.
You can also choose to receive updates via daily or weekly email digests. If you are following multiple preprints then we will send you no more than one email per day or week based on your preferences.
Note: You are now also subscribed to the subject areas of this preprint and will receive updates in the daily or weekly email digests if turned on. You can add specific subject areas through your profile settings.
Usage since published - updated daily