Environmental context explains Lévy and Brownian movement patterns of marine predators

An optimal search theory, the so-called Levy-flight foraging hypothesis(1), predicts that predators should adopt search strategies known as Levy flights where prey is sparse and distributed unpredictably, but that Brownian movement is sufficiently efficient for locating abundant prey(2-4). Empirical studies have generated controversy because the accuracy of statistical methods that have been used to identify Levy behaviour has recently been questioned(5,6). Consequently, whether foragers exhibit Levy flights in the wild remains unclear. Crucially, moreover, it has not been tested whether observed movement patterns across natural landscapes having different expected resource distributions conform to the theory's central predictions. Here we use maximum-likelihood methods to test for Levy patterns in relation to environmental gradients in the largest animal movement data set assembled for this purpose. Strong support was found for Levy search patterns across 14 species of open-ocean predatory fish (sharks, tuna, billfish and ocean sunfish), with some individuals switching between Levy and Brownian movement as they traversed different habitat types. We tested the spatial occurrence of these two principal patterns and found Levy behaviour to be associated with less productive waters (sparser prey) and Brownian movements to be associated with productive shelf or convergence-front habitats (abundant prey). These results are consistent with the Levy-flight foraging hypothesis(1,7), supporting the contention(8,9) that organism search strategies naturally evolved in such a way that they exploit optimal Levy patterns.

Prioritization of knowledge needs for sustainable aquaculture: a national and global perspective

Aquaculture is currently the fastest expanding global animal food production sector and is a key future contributor to food security. An increase in food security will be dependent upon the development and improvement of sustainable practices. A prioritization exercise was undertaken, focusing on the future knowledge needs to underpin UK sustainable aquaculture (both domestic and imported products) using a ‘task force’ group of 36 ‘practitioners’ and 12 ‘research scientists’ who have an active interest in sustainable aquaculture. A long list of 264 knowledge needs related to sustainable aquaculture was developed in conjunction with the task force. The long list was further refined through a three stage process of voting and scoring, including discussions of each knowledge need. The top 25 knowledge needs are presented, as scored separately by ‘practitioners’ or ‘research scientists’. There was similar agreement in priorities identified by these two groups. The priority knowledge needs will provide guidance to structure ongoing work to make science accessible to practitioners and help to prioritize future science policy needs and funding. The process of knowledge exchange, and the mechanisms by which this can be achieved, effectively emerged as the top priority for sustainable aquaculture. Viable alternatives to wild fish-based aquaculture feeds, resource constraints that will potentially limit expansion of aquaculture, sustainable offshore aquaculture and the treatment of sea lice also emerged as strong priorities. Although the exercise was focused on UK needs for sustainable aquaculture, many of the emergent issues are considered to have global application.