Correction: Eco-Label Conveys Reliable Information on Fish Stock Health to Seafood Consumers.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043765.].

Quality of a fished resource: Assessing spatial and temporal dynamics.

Understanding spatio-temporal variability in the demography of harvested species is essential to improve sustainability, especially if there is large geographic variation in demography. Reproductive patterns commonly vary spatially, which is particularly important for management of "roe"-based fisheries, since profits depend on both the number and reproductive condition of individuals. The red sea urchin, Mesocentrotus franciscanus, is harvested in California for its roe (gonad), which is sold to domestic and international sushi markets. The primary driver of price within this multi-million-dollar industry is gonad quality. A relatively simple measure of the fraction of the body mass that is gonad, the gonadosomatic index (GSI), provides important insight into the ecological and environmental factors associated with variability in reproductive quality, and hence value within the industry. We identified the seasonality of the reproductive cycle and determined whether it varied within a heavily fished region. We found that fishermen were predictable both temporally and spatially in collecting urchins according to the reproductive dynamics of urchins. We demonstrated the use of red sea urchin GSI as a simple, quantitative tool to predict quality, effort, landings, price, and value of the fishery. We found that current management is not effectively realizing some objectives for the southern California fishery, since the reproductive cycle does not match the cycle in northern California, where these management guidelines were originally shaped. Although regulations may not be meeting initial management goals, the scheme may in fact provide conservation benefits by curtailing effort during part of the high-quality fishing season right before spawning.

Eco-label conveys reliable information on fish stock health to seafood consumers.

Concerns over fishing impacts on marine populations and ecosystems have intensified the need to improve ocean management. One increasingly popular market-based instrument for ecological stewardship is the use of certification and eco-labeling programs to highlight sustainable fisheries with low environmental impacts. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is the most prominent of these programs. Despite widespread discussions about the rigor of the MSC standards, no comprehensive analysis of the performance of MSC-certified fish stocks has yet been conducted. We compared status and abundance trends of 45 certified stocks with those of 179 uncertified stocks, finding that 74% of certified fisheries were above biomass levels that would produce maximum sustainable yield, compared with only 44% of uncertified fisheries. On average, the biomass of certified stocks increased by 46% over the past 10 years, whereas uncertified fisheries increased by just 9%. As part of the MSC process, fisheries initially go through a confidential pre-assessment process. When certified fisheries are compared with those that decline to pursue full certification after pre-assessment, certified stocks had much lower mean exploitation rates (67% of the rate producing maximum sustainable yield vs. 92% for those declining to pursue certification), allowing for more sustainable harvesting and in many cases biomass rebuilding. From a consumer's point of view this means that MSC-certified seafood is 3-5 times less likely to be subject to harmful fishing than uncertified seafood. Thus, MSC-certification accurately identifies healthy fish stocks and conveys reliable information on stock status to seafood consumers.

Using expert judgment to estimate marine ecosystem vulnerability in the California Current.

As resource management and conservation efforts move toward multi-sector, ecosystem-based approaches, we need methods for comparing the varying responses of ecosystems to the impacts of human activities in order to prioritize management efforts, allocate limited resources, and understand cumulative effects. Given the number and variety of human activities affecting ecosystems, relatively few empirical studies are adequately comprehensive to inform these decisions. Consequently, management often turns to expert judgment for information. Drawing on methods from decision science, we offer a method for eliciting expert judgment to (1) quantitatively estimate the relative vulnerability of ecosystems to stressors, (2) help prioritize the management of stressors across multiple ecosystems, (3) evaluate how experts give weight to different criteria to characterize vulnerability of ecosystems to anthropogenic stressors, and (4) identify key knowledge gaps. We applied this method to the California Current region in order to evaluate the relative vulnerability of 19 marine ecosystems to 53 stressors associated with human activities, based on surveys from 107 experts. When judging the relative vulnerability of ecosystems to stressors, we found that experts primarily considered two criteria: the ecosystem's resistance to the stressor and the number of species or trophic levels affected. Four intertidal ecosystems (mudflat, beach, salt marsh, and rocky intertidal) were judged most vulnerable to the suite of human activities evaluated here. The highest vulnerability rankings for coastal ecosystems were invasive species, ocean acidification, sea temperature change, sea level rise, and habitat alteration from coastal engineering, while offshore ecosystems were assessed to be most vulnerable to ocean acidification, demersal destructive fishing, and shipwrecks. These results provide a quantitative, transparent, and repeatable assessment of relative vulnerability across ecosystems to any ongoing or emerging human activity. Combining these results with data on the spatial distribution and intensity of human activities provides a systematic foundation for ecosystem-based management.