Large Fish Populations Imperiled

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


For weekend fishermen, there are many tall tales about "the big one that got away." New findings published today by the journal Nature indicate that big fish are indeed hard to catch. But disturbingly, the results suggest that's because the world's large fish--tuna, marlin, swordfish, sharks, cod and halibut among them--have been so exploited by industrial fisheries that 90 percent of them have disappeared from the sea.

That industrial fishing has impacted individual species, such as Atlantic cod off the coast of Newfoundland, is undeniable. But Ransom A. Myers of Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia and Boris Worm of the University of Kiel in Germany examined the problem of overfishing globally. They conducted a 10-year-long study that assembled data sets representing all major fisheries in the world over the past 47 years. The analysis included biomass estimates of large predatory fish populations from four continental shelves and nine oceanic systems. The team determined that within the first 15 years of operation, commercial fisheries reduced fish populations by 80 percent on average. In the Gulf of Thailand, for example, 60 percent of large finfish, sharks and skate were lost within the first five years of commercial trawl fishing. "Since 1950," notes Myers, "with the onset of industrialized fisheries, we have rapidly reduced the resource base to less than 10 percent--not just in some areas, not just for some stocks, but for entire communities of these large fish species from the tropics to the poles."

What is more, the researchers categorize their findings as conservative estimates. For one thing, the catch rate for longline fishing has dropped by a factor of 10 over a span of 10 years despite significant technological improvements. In order to stem the tide of devastation, the authors suggest, an overall reduction in the percentage of fish killed each year, perhaps by as much as 60 percent, is necessary. Although simple in theory, putting such guidelines into practice will require global cooperation and a willingness to give up short-term gains in exchange for long-term prosperity. But to ignore the problem, Myers says, could be disastrous. "If present fishing levels persist," he remarks, "these great fish will go the way of the dinosaurs."

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe