Trevor J. Ward
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Trevor J. Ward has a total of 13 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Graham J. Edgar
Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania
2 shared publications - Alana Grech
College of Science and Engineering James Cook University Townsville Queensland Australia
1 shared publication - Dominic Chakra Thomson
Dominic Chakra Thomson, London, UK
1 shared publication Ganapathiraju Pramod
IUU Risk Intelligence, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
1 shared publication- John N. Kittinger
Center for Oceans, Conservation International, Honolulu, HI, USA
1 shared publication - Katrina Nakamura
Sustainability Incubator, Honolulu, USA
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 18 September 2020
- Published by Wiley in Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
- Vol. 30 (9) , 1758-1764
Residual marine protected areas five years on: Are we still favouring ease of establishment over need for protection?
Marine protected areas (MPAs) are today's cornerstone of many marine conservation strategies. Our 2015 study (Devillers et al., 2015) and others have shown, however, that the placement of MPAs is ‘residual’ to commercial uses and biased towards areas of lower economic value or interest. In this paper, we explored the impact of our study on marine science, policy and management practice. We reviewed the papers citing our work and compiled expert opinions on some of the impacts of our study. Results indicate a strong general uptake in the scientific community but more uneven impacts on policy and management in different contexts, with a likely smaller impact of the research on conservation practice.
- 18 September 2020
- Published by Wiley in Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
- Vol. 30 (9) , 1758-1764
Residual marine protected areas five years on: Are we still favouring ease of establishment over need for protection?
Marine protected areas (MPAs) are today's cornerstone of many marine conservation strategies. Our 2015 study (Devillers et al., 2015) and others have shown, however, that the placement of MPAs is ‘residual’ to commercial uses and biased towards areas of lower economic value or interest. In this paper, we explored the impact of our study on marine science, policy and management practice. We reviewed the papers citing our work and compiled expert opinions on some of the impacts of our study. Results indicate a strong general uptake in the scientific community but more uneven impacts on policy and management in different contexts, with a likely smaller impact of the research on conservation practice.
- Open Access
- 6 July 2018
- Published by American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Science Advances
- Vol. 4 (7) , e1701833
Seeing slavery in seafood supply chains
We combined reliable human rights data and industry technology to identify ways to remediate forced labor risk in seafood production.
- 6 July 2018
- Published by American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Science Advances
- Vol. 4 (7) , e1701833
Open AccessSeeing slavery in seafood supply chains
We combined reliable human rights data and industry technology to identify ways to remediate forced labor risk in seafood production.
- 31 May 2018
- Published by Wiley in Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
- Vol. 28 (6) , 1337-1350
Rapid declines across Australian fishery stocks indicate global sustainability targets will not be achieved without an expanded network of ‘no‐fishing’ reserves
A continuing debate between environmental scientists and fisheries biologists on the sustainability of fisheries management practices, and the extent of fishing impacts on marine ecosystems, is unlikely to be resolved without fishery‐independent data spanning large geographic and temporal scales. Here, we compare continental‐ and decadal‐scale trends in fisheries catches with underwater reef monitoring data for 533 sites around Australia, and find matching evidence of rapid fish‐stock declines. Regardless of a high global ranking for fisheries sustainability, catches from Australian wild fisheries decreased by 31% over the past decade. The biomass of large fishes observed on underwater transects decreased significantly over the same period on fished reefs (36% decline) and in marine park zones that allow limited fishing (18% decline), but with a negligible overall change in no‐fishing marine reserves. Populations of exploited fishes generally rose within marine reserves and declined outside the reserves, whereas unexploited species showed little difference in population trends within or outside reserves. Although changing climate and more precautionary fisheries management contribute to declining fish catches, fisheries‐independent transect data suggest that excessive fishing also plays a major role. The large number of fishery stocks that remain unmanaged or have poor data, coupled with continuing declines in the stock biomass of managed fish species, indicate that Aichi Target 6 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (i.e. ‘by 2020, all fish and invertebrate stocks and aquatic plants are managed and harvested sustainably’) will not be achieved in Australia, or elsewhere. In order to maintain some naturally functioning food webs supported by large predators and associated ecosystem services in this era of changing climate, a greatly expanded network of effective, fully protected marine protected areas is needed that encompasses global marine biodiversity. The present globally unbalanced situation, with >98% of seas open to some form of fishing, deserves immediate multinational attention.
- 31 May 2018
- Published by Wiley in Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
- Vol. 28 (6) , 1337-1350
Rapid declines across Australian fishery stocks indicate global sustainability targets will not be achieved without an expanded network of ‘no‐fishing’ reserves
A continuing debate between environmental scientists and fisheries biologists on the sustainability of fisheries management practices, and the extent of fishing impacts on marine ecosystems, is unlikely to be resolved without fishery‐independent data spanning large geographic and temporal scales. Here, we compare continental‐ and decadal‐scale trends in fisheries catches with underwater reef monitoring data for 533 sites around Australia, and find matching evidence of rapid fish‐stock declines. Regardless of a high global ranking for fisheries sustainability, catches from Australian wild fisheries decreased by 31% over the past decade. The biomass of large fishes observed on underwater transects decreased significantly over the same period on fished reefs (36% decline) and in marine park zones that allow limited fishing (18% decline), but with a negligible overall change in no‐fishing marine reserves. Populations of exploited fishes generally rose within marine reserves and declined outside the reserves, whereas unexploited species showed little difference in population trends within or outside reserves. Although changing climate and more precautionary fisheries management contribute to declining fish catches, fisheries‐independent transect data suggest that excessive fishing also plays a major role. The large number of fishery stocks that remain unmanaged or have poor data, coupled with continuing declines in the stock biomass of managed fish species, indicate that Aichi Target 6 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (i.e. ‘by 2020, all fish and invertebrate stocks and aquatic plants are managed and harvested sustainably’) will not be achieved in Australia, or elsewhere. In order to maintain some naturally functioning food webs supported by large predators and associated ecosystem services in this era of changing climate, a greatly expanded network of effective, fully protected marine protected areas is needed that encompasses global marine biodiversity. The present globally unbalanced situation, with >98% of seas open to some form of fishing, deserves immediate multinational attention.