Sissenwine Michael P.

No Thumbnail Available
Last Name
Sissenwine
First Name
Michael P.
ORCID

Filters

3 1
4
Reset filters

Settings

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Article
    William (Bill) Peterson's contributions to ocean science, management, and policy
    (Elsevier, 2019-12-09) Schwing, Franklin B. ; Sissenwine, Michael P. ; Batchelder, Harold P. ; Dam, Hans G. ; Gómez-Gutiérrez, Jaime ; Keister, Julie E. ; Liu, Hui ; Peterson, Jay O.
    In addition to being an esteemed marine ecologist and oceanographer, William T. (Bill) Peterson was a dedicated public servant, a leader in the ocean science community, and a mentor to a generation of scientists. Bill recognized the importance of applied science and the need for integrated “big science” programs to advance our understanding of ecosystems and to guide their management. As the first US GLOBEC program manager, he was pivotal in transitioning the concept of understanding how climate change impacts marine ecosystems to an operational national research program. The scientific insight and knowledge generated by US GLOBEC informed and advanced the ecosystem-based management approaches now being implemented for fishery management in the US. Bill held significant leadership roles in numerous international efforts to understand global and regional ecological processes, and organized and chaired a number of influential scientific conferences and their proceedings. He was passionate about working with and training young researchers. Bill’s academic affiliations, notably at Stony Brook and Oregon State Universities, enabled him to advise, train, and mentor a host of students, post-doctoral researchers, and laboratory technicians. Under his collegial guidance they became critical independent thinkers and diligent investigators. His former students and colleagues carry on Bill Peterson’s legacy of research that helps us understand marine ecosystems and informs more effective resource stewardship and conservation.
  • Article
    Marine reserve effects on fishery profits : a comment on White et al. (2008)
    (John Wiley & Sons, 2008-12-22) Hart, Deborah R. ; Sissenwine, Michael P.
    A recent study (White et al. 2008) claimed that fishery profits will often be higher with management that employs no-take marine reserves than conventional fisheries management alone. However, this conclusion was based on the erroneous assumption that all landed fish have equal value regardless of size, and questionable assumptions regarding density-dependence. Examination of an age-structured version of the White et al. (2008) model demonstrates that their results are not robust to these assumptions. Models with more realistic assumptions generally do not indicate increased fishery yield or profits from marine reserves except for overfished stocks.
  • Article
    Why compare marine ecosystems?
    (Oxford University Press, 2009-08-30) Murawski, Steven A. ; Steele, John H. ; Taylor, Phillip ; Fogarty, Michael J. ; Sissenwine, Michael P. ; Ford, Michael ; Suchman, Cynthia
    Effective marine ecosystem-based management (EBM) requires understanding the key processes and relationships controlling the aspects of biodiversity, productivity, and resilience to perturbations. Unfortunately, the scales, complexity, and non-linear dynamics that characterize marine ecosystems often confound managing for these properties. Nevertheless, scientifically derived decision-support tools (DSTs) are needed to account for impacts resulting from a variety of simultaneous human activities. Three possible methodologies for revealing mechanisms necessary to develop DSTs for EBM are: (i) controlled experimentation, (ii) iterative programmes of observation and modelling ("learning by doing"), and (iii) comparative ecosystem analysis. We have seen that controlled experiments are limited in capturing the complexity necessary to develop models of marine ecosystem dynamics with sufficient realism at appropriate scales. Iterative programmes of observation, model building, and assessment are useful for specific ecosystem issues but rarely lead to generally transferable products. Comparative ecosystem analyses may be the most effective, building on the first two by inferring ecosystem processes based on comparisons and contrasts of ecosystem response to human-induced factors. We propose a hierarchical system of ecosystem comparisons to include within-ecosystem comparisons (utilizing temporal and spatial changes in relation to human activities), within-ecosystem-type comparisons (e.g. coral reefs, temperate continental shelves, upwelling areas), and cross-ecosystem-type comparisons (e.g. coral reefs vs. boreal, terrestrial vs. marine ecosystems). Such a hierarchical comparative approach should lead to better understanding of the processes controlling biodiversity, productivity, and the resilience of marine ecosystems. In turn, better understanding of these processes will lead to the development of increasingly general laws, hypotheses, functional forms, governing equations, and broad interpretations of ecosystem responses to human activities, ultimately improving DSTs in support of EBM.
  • Technical Report
    Report of the Fisheries Ecology Meeting, June 8-11, 1981
    (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1982-06) Rothschild, Brian ; Clark, Colin W. ; Sissenwine, Michael P. ; Steele, John H.
    An Ad Hoc Group of the Ocean Sciences Board of the Assembly of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, National Research Council, was formed in 1980 to study the constraints that impede advances in the understanding of fisheries ecology. In order to continue the discussions of the Ad Hoc Group and plan strategies or actions that might be taken to resolve the critical questions of fisheries ecology, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration sponsored a Fisheries Ecology Meeting at Woods Hole, June 8-11, 1981. The Woods Hole meeting addressed various topics related to a) fisheries ecology: the point of view of management, b) regional experience, c) fish and their environment, d) population dynamics, e) socioeconomics, f) the national environment for conducting fisheries ecology research, and g) actions that need to be undertaken.