Reply to Andersen et al. (2016) "Assumptions behind size-based ecosystem models are realistic"

Creative Commons License

Froese R., Walters C., Pauly D., Winker H., Weyl O. L. F., Demirel N., ...More

ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE, vol.73, pp.1656-1658, 2016 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Editorial Material
  • Volume: 73
  • Publication Date: 2016
  • Doi Number: 10.1093/icesjms/fsv273
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Page Numbers: pp.1656-1658
  • Istanbul University Affiliated: Yes


In a recent publication (Froese et al., ICES Journal of Marine Science; 73: 1640-1650), we presented a critique of the balanced harvesting (BH) approach to fishing. A short section dealt with the size-spectrum models used to justify BH, wherein we pointed out the lack of realism of these models, which mostly represented ecosystems as consisting of a single cannibalistic species. Andersen et al. (ICES Journal of Marine Science; 73: 1651-1655) commented on our paper and suggested that we criticized size-spectrum models in general and that we supposedly made several erroneous statements. We stress that we only referred to the size-spectrum models that we cited, and we respond to each supposedly erroneous statement. We still believe that the size-spectrum models used to justify BH were highly unrealistic and not suitable for evaluating real-world fishing strategies. We agree with Andersen et al. that BH is unlikely to be a useful guiding principle for ecosystem-based fisheries management, for many reasons. The use of unrealistic models is one of them.