Back to all available

Assessing the sustainability of reef and demersal fish stocks in Northwest México under a data-limited approach

aquaculture-fisheries-and-fish-science
natural-resource-management

Abstract

In México, most assessments have focused on industrial fisheries, while many finfish stocks remain underrepresented in regional evaluations. These information gaps present a significant challenge to achieving sustainability in artisanal fisheries, in addition to the complexities introduced by high species diversity and extensive social participation. This study aimed to evaluate the exploitation status of reef and demersal stocks reported in northwest México, dividing the region between the stocks of the Californian province (CAL) and the Cortez province (COR). Data-limited models (CMSY++) were employed to estimate relative stock size (B/B MSY ) and fishing pressure (F/F MSY ) for 111 stocks. Three exploitation approaches were considered to classify stocks as sustainable or unsustainable: i) Froese, ii) FAO, and iii) Kobe. Based on this classification, the proportion of sustainable stocks with respect to the total assessed was calculated (indicator 14.4.1, SDG 14). Through this regional assessment, a low proportion of sustainable stocks were registered according to the three exploitation approaches considered: Froese (CAL: 30%, COR: 26%), FAO (CAL: 11%, COR: 11%), and Kobe (CAL: 11%, COR: 9%), placing both provinces significantly far from meeting the sustainable fisheries target of Sustainable Development Goal 14. These low proportions differ from what is reported globally, which might be due to the underrepresentation of reef and demersal species in fishery evaluations.
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].