Scientific publication (e.g., journal articles and book chapters independently peer-reviewed)
Testing sustainable management in Northern Chile: harvesting Macrocystis pyrifera (Phaeophyceae, Laminariales). A case study.
Is the species endemic HIDE
Unknown
Population Status
Unknown/not recorded
Unknown/not recorded
National Level
Unknown/not recorded
Population Trend
Unknown/not recorded
Sub-national Level
Unknown/not recorded
Name
Emma Hemmerlé
Scientific Name
Macrocystis pyrifera
Common Name(s)
Giant Kelp
Bladder Kelp
Type of Use
Extractive (i.e., the entire organism or parts of the organism are removed from its environment)
If extractive, for the target species, is this use
Lethal
Does this use involve take/extraction of
The whole entire organism
Details of parts/products taken
unlike other kelps, M. pyrifera is typically collected by hand from small boats, the shore, or on SCUBA while still attached to the substrate. This often requires collecting entire individuals, including their reproductive sporophylls, potentially making it problematic for the persistence of the resource.
Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?
Unknown/not recorded
Purpose of Use
Largescale commercial exploitation for trade
Additional Details (if available)
Kelp harvesting in Northern Chile is part of an organized industry.
kelp harvesting for the extraction of alginates; upon extraction are used for their stabilizing, thickening, film- forming, and antiviral properties; increase in harvesting of this species with the increasing demand for kelp as food in abalone aquaculture ;
What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?
Local people (e.g., individuals, communities, co-operatives)
If more than one box ticked, please provide more details
Kelp harvesting in Northern Chile is managed by local fishermen.
Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?
No
Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE
Yes – use is negatively affecting the status (e.g., population is declining; extraction effort is increasing)
Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?
Unknown/not recorded
Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?
Unknown/not reported
Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species
Unknown/not recorded
Unknown/not recorded
Yes, considered unsustainable
Details of assessment carried out
current method of harvesting consists in extracting all the fronds from all of the individuals in a population; method of harvesting used by the fishermen did not result in new growth and is therefore not sustainable, at least in a short-term period; The lack of new fronds growing on boulders where all the fronds were removed, in contrast, suggests no asexual reproduction, and thus may slow or inhibit population recovery, at least in the short- term, and therefore could partially explain the decline of these populations over the last few decades following in- tense harvesting pressure;
Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded
Borras-Chavez, R., Edwards, M. & Vásquez, J.A. Testing sustainable management in Northern Chile: harvesting Macrocystis pyrifera (Phaeophyceae, Laminariales). A case study. J Appl Phycol 24, 1655–1665 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-012-9829-x
kelp harvesting practices have led to kelp populations being considerably reduced during the last decade;
Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles
Unknown/not recorded
How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?
How many people outside the local area are employed
Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs