A predator-based approach to conflicts and interactions between pinnipeds, salmon aquaculture and fisheries in the Northwest Patagonia


Abstract

Predation by the Southern sea lion Otaria byronia is a central factor in socio-ecological conflicts involving fisheries and salmon aquaculture in southern Chile. While most efforts have been aimed at estimating fishery and aquaculture losses, we focus here on estimating the prey supply needed to sustain the current population of O. byronia in the Northwest Patagonian Fjords System (NWPFS). Integrating updated population abundance, life stage-sex composition, diet data, and bioenergetics modeling, we estimated an average daily consumption of 4.8 kg per sea lion—considerably lower than previous figures often cited in public discourse. Annual consumption of southern hake Merluccius australis by O. byronia was estimated at approximately 3,900 metric tons, corresponding to 82% of the median local fishery landings over the past two decades. This substantial overlap highlights potential competition for this heavily exploited resource. In contrast, predation on Patagonian sprat Sprattus fuegensis was negligible in biomass and fishery terms. The annual consumption of escaped salmonids was estimated at 728 tons, underscoring the role of O. byronia as a biological control of these invasive populations. Conversely, consumption of caged salmonids was minimal (~142 tons annually), challenging salmon producers’ claims of significant losses due to sea lions. These findings highlight the urgent need to shift the prevalent fisheries management mindset from a narrow, monospecific focus on target species toward a broader, ecosystem-based approach. This shift implies, in practice, incorporating O. byronia’s trophic demand into quota estimation processes to ensure sustainable management of shared resources like southern hake. Only by recognizing and accounting for the ecological role and energetic needs of this top predator can management strategies effectively balance conservation objectives with fishery yields, reducing conflicts and promoting long-term ecosystem resilience.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].