29 research outputs found

    Table_1_Subsidies and allocation: A legacy of distortion and intergenerational loss.DOCX

    No full text
    One of the greatest threats to the conservation of transboundary stocks is the failure of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) to equitably allocate future fishing opportunities. Across RFMOs, catch history remains the principal criterion for catch allocations, despite being recognized as a critical barrier to governance stability. This paper examines if and how subsidies have driven catch histories, thereby perpetuating the legacy of unfair resource competition between distant water fishing nations (DWFNs) and coastal States, and how this affects ongoing allocation negotiations in the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC). Using limited publicly available data on subsidies to Indian Ocean tuna fleets, we show that subsidies have inflated catch histories of many DWFN's. As long as historical catch remains the key allocation criterion, future fishing opportunities will continue to be skewed in favor of DWFNs, in turn marginalizing half of the IOTC member States, which collectively account for a paltry 4% of the current catch. Without better transparency in past subsidies data, accounting for this distortion will be difficult. We provide alternative allocation options for consideration, with our analysis showing that re-attributing DWFN catch to the coastal State in whose waters it was caught may begin to alleviate this historical injustice.</p

    Representative examples of flow-cytometry histograms obtained from nuclear suspensions (5–10,000 counts) of Propidium Iodide (PI) stained larval samples.

    No full text
    <p>a) Control diploid (2n) larva (CV: 5%); b) haploid (n) larva produced with a UV-dose of 60 mJ.cm<sup>−2</sup> (CV: 10%). DNA values on the X-axis are reported in arbitrary units expressed as fluorescent channel numbers (PE-A). G2 represent mitotic peaks.</p

    Morphology of control and UV-treated embryos and larvae.

    No full text
    <p>a) Control embryo at 74 h pf; b) control larva at hatching; c) UV treated embryos at 74 hpf showing microcephaly, short and large body; d) UV-treated larvae at hatching showing microphtalmy, short body and curved tail. Scale bars represent 500 ”m.</p

    Microsatellite marker loci transmission in three putative androgenetic progenies (A1, B1 and C2) produced with a UV-dose of 60 mJ.cm<sup>−2</sup>.

    No full text
    <p>Genotypes of progenies showing only discriminant paternal alleles are presented in bold characters. For putative androgenetic progenies, homozygous or haploid alleles are only written once since genotyping cannot distinguish between the presence of one or two copies of the same allele. N represents the number of analyzed individuals in each progeny.</p><p>Microsatellite marker loci transmission in three putative androgenetic progenies (A1, B1 and C2) produced with a UV-dose of 60 mJ.cm<sup>−2</sup>.</p
    corecore