Ask Question
18 August, 09:15

In one fishing ground off the coast of England, herring were fished so extensively that their numbers dropped 30-fold in 15 years. A fishing ban allowed herring numbers to rebound to the extent that they are now a species of least concern. For a species that is declining, like the herring, why might a scientists want to establish a "no-fishing" zone (like a marine protected area) as a tool for dealing with overfishing? Explain two benefits and list at least one potential limitation of this type of intervention.

+1
Answers (1)
  1. 18 August, 09:17
    0
    A no-fishing zone should be established so that:

    a. the fish would have time to reproduce and create more of its kind

    b. the fish would have time to grow and rich its fully-matured state

    Two benefits of this practice can:

    a. stimulate the balance within the ecosystem through the predator-prey relationship

    b. control the relationship of the environment and its continuous change.

    A limiting potential for this practice is that:

    a. variety of other fishes might also decline because of the increase in number of a particular species took place.
Know the Answer?
Not Sure About the Answer?
Find an answer to your question 👍 “In one fishing ground off the coast of England, herring were fished so extensively that their numbers dropped 30-fold in 15 years. A ...” in 📗 Biology if the answers seem to be not correct or there’s no answer. Try a smart search to find answers to similar questions.
Search for Other Answers