Claim by Pichegru et al. that marine no-take zone benefits penguins remains premature
| dc.contributor.author | Butterworth, Douglas | |
| dc.contributor.author | Brandao, Anabela | |
| dc.contributor.author | de Moor, Carryn | |
| dc.contributor.author | Robinson, William | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-02-09T10:17:25Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-02-09T10:17:25Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2010 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Pichegru et al. (2010), and a follow up comment by Ryan et al. (2010), make strongly stated claims that closures to pelagic fishing around islands with penguin breeding colonies lead to rapid improvements in those penguin populations. These claims are contested for a variety of reasons, including problems with the analysis method used. Claims that the pelagic fishing stocks are in poor condition, and that this is because of an absence of spatial management, are also contested, as are some other sweeping statements. The data currently available are too limited to be able to confirm or deny the claims made at this stage. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.apacitation | 2010. <i>Claim by Pichegru et al. that marine no-take zone benefits penguins remains premature.</i> http://hdl.handle.net/11427/35669 | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.chicagocitation | . 2010. <i>Claim by Pichegru et al. that marine no-take zone benefits penguins remains premature.</i> http://hdl.handle.net/11427/35669 | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.citation | 2010. <i>Claim by Pichegru et al. that marine no-take zone benefits penguins remains premature.</i> http://hdl.handle.net/11427/35669 | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.ris | TY - Other AU - Butterworth, Douglas AU - Brandao, Anabela AU - de Moor, Carryn AU - Robinson, William AB - Pichegru et al. (2010), and a follow up comment by Ryan et al. (2010), make strongly stated claims that closures to pelagic fishing around islands with penguin breeding colonies lead to rapid improvements in those penguin populations. These claims are contested for a variety of reasons, including problems with the analysis method used. Claims that the pelagic fishing stocks are in poor condition, and that this is because of an absence of spatial management, are also contested, as are some other sweeping statements. The data currently available are too limited to be able to confirm or deny the claims made at this stage. DA - 2010 DB - OpenUCT DP - University of Cape Town KW - penguin, forage fish, fishery closures, precautionary principle, abundance estimation LK - https://open.uct.ac.za PY - 2010 T1 - Claim by Pichegru et al. that marine no-take zone benefits penguins remains premature TI - Claim by Pichegru et al. that marine no-take zone benefits penguins remains premature UR - http://hdl.handle.net/11427/35669 ER - | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11427/35669 | |
| dc.identifier.vancouvercitation | . 2010. <i>Claim by Pichegru et al. that marine no-take zone benefits penguins remains premature.</i> http://hdl.handle.net/11427/35669 | en_ZA |
| dc.publisher.department | Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics | en_US |
| dc.publisher.faculty | Faculty of Science | en_US |
| dc.subject | penguin, forage fish, fishery closures, precautionary principle, abundance estimation | en_US |
| dc.title | Claim by Pichegru et al. that marine no-take zone benefits penguins remains premature | en_US |
| dc.type | Other | en_US |