Aquaculture and Fisheries 8 (2023) 202–210

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aquaculture and Fisheries

journal homepage: www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/aquaculture-and-fisheries

Global knowledge domain and prospects in tuna research: A

bibliometric analysis
Jingqian Xie a, b, Zhihe Bian a, Qiang Wu a, Lin Tao a, Feng Wu c, *, Tian Lin a, **
a
College of Marine Ecology and Environment, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai, 201306, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Organic Geochemistry, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Environment and Resources, Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Guangzhou, 510640, China
c
College of Marine Science, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai, 201306, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Tunas are among the most economically important fish species and play critical roles in food composition and
Tuna nutrition of humans. As apex predators, they also keep the marine ecosystem healthy and balanced. Both natural
CiteSpace and human factors influence the status of this important marine resource and their habitats. There is a large
Hotpots
cadre of studies on how tunas are of great significance to the exploitation and management of their fisheries, yet
Emerging trend
there are few summaries of this research. We aimed to quantitatively and qualitatively synthesize the global
knowledge structure and emerging trends in tuna research using bibliometric software. References with "Tuna",
"Katsuwonus", or "Thunnus" as the subject in the Web of Science Core Collection Database from 1995 to 2019
were visually analyzed using CiteSpace. Publication rate and output, active countries, institutions, authors, and
co-cited references were performed. Results suggested that the number of international tuna research papers
increased significantly between 2000 and 2010, as a considerable number of high-impact articles emerged during
this period. Researchers paid more attention to 19 main topics during this period, notably "overfishing",
"bycatch", "climate change", "marine pollution", and "fish management", which all posed potential risks and
challenges to tuna survival. Future research should emphasize resolving these challenges and building interna­
tional cooperation for the proper management of tuna populations.

1. Introduction such as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and

The family Scombridae (order Perciformes) is composed of 51 spe­
cies, including tunas (Collette et al., 2019). Among them, 7 are major
commercially exploited oceanic species: Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus
thynnus), Pacific bluefin tuna (T. orientalis), southern bluefin tuna (T.
maccoyii), bigeye tuna (T. obesus), albacore tuna (T. alalunga), yellowfin
tuna (T. albacares), and skipjack fish (Katsuwonus pelamis) (Majkowski,
2007). Spawning grounds of tunas are extensively distributed in the
tropical, subtropical, and temperate waters in oceanic waters worldwide
(Duffy et al., 2017; Erauskin-Extramiana et al., 2019; Sharp, 2001).
As apex predators in the marine ecosystem, tunas play critical roles
in marine food webs and reflect significant changes in the marine
ecosystem, particularly in terms of pollution (Essington et al., 2002;
Ueno et al., 2004). Tunas are also generally recognized as a
health-promoting food, rich in high-quality protein and n-3 fatty acids,
other essential nutrients which play vital roles in the prevention and
treatment of diseases (Maqbool et al., 2011; Mesías et al., 2015). They
are traded internationally as canning, sashimi, and sushi products
(Majkowski, 2007). Due to their wide distribution, rich resource re­
serves, and high economic value, tunas have become dominant species
in world fish markets across 85 countries, accounting for 61% of the
total high seas catch by weight, and become a key concern for the
development of ocean fisheries (Fromentin & Powers, 2005). The global
tuna catch increased from less than 0.4 million tons in 1950 to 6 metric
million tons in 2019 (Coulter et al., 2020), an increase of over 1000 per
cent in the past 60 years. However, there is still illegal, unreported, and
unregulated (IUU) fishing which threatens stock rebuilding programs
(Christensen, 2016; Öztürk, 2015). Overfishing and unsustainable fish­
ing have been depleting fish populations around the world (Elgamouz
et al., 2019). Another significant challenge for tuna fisheries is that their

* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: fwu@shou.edu.cn (F. Wu), tlin@shou.edu.cn (T. Lin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaf.2021.09.005
Received 30 November 2020; Received in revised form 18 September 2021; Accepted 21 September 2021
Available online 5 November 2021
2468-550X/© 2021 Shanghai Ocean University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under
the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
J. Xie et al.
fishing gear results in bycatch (discarded catch and incidental catch)
(Huang & Liu, 2010).
Climate change is another significant anthropogenic stressor on
marine ecosystems (Lehodey et al., 2015). It has been estimated that
tuna habitat distribution limits have moved towards the poles at 6.5 km
per decade in the northern hemisphere and 5.5 km per decade in the
southern hemisphere (Erauskin-Extramiana et al., 2019). Tuna stocks
have also been challenged by the changing climate (Hazen et al., 2013).
Environmental pollution on marine ecosystems is widely distributed,
with tunas exposed to mercury, persistent organic pollutants (POPs),
and other harmful contaminants around the world. The number of
contaminants varies with where tunas are caught (Nicklisch et al.,
2017). Histamine food poisoning is one such health hazard linked to
tuna consumption (Velut et al., 2019). Consuming too much tuna flesh,
with these pollutants, may lead to serious health issues, so control of
pollutant levels in fish is essential to assessing human exposure to con­
taminants through the diet.
Although tunas are important to the marine ecosystem and humans,
both natural and human factors influence the living marine resource and
its socioeconomic status. Over the past few decades, scientists have
produced a lot of researches to sustain livelihoods and improve the ef­
ficiency of tuna utilization (Campbell et al., 2002; Chotikachinda et al.,
2018). Although there is a large body of literature, a global and
comprehensive literature review concerning the development of the
entire tuna research catalog is scarce (Pillai & Satheeshkumar, 2012;
Sardenne et al., 2016). Moreover, traditional literature reviews are
usually highly subjective and frustratingly inefficient based on human
choice in the selection and evaluation of original documents (Haddaway
et al., 2015).
This paper aims to visualize and analyze trends and patterns in the
tuna literature and to find the critical points, hot topics, and frontiers of
tuna research using the CiteSpace results, to effectively help readers to
gain a better understanding of tuna research and the major developing
trends of this field. These may also provide the researchers with a
theoretical focus and research frontiers with respect to tunas.
2. Methods
Bibliometrics can allow us to analyze a number of articles in multiple
dimensions (van Raan, 2019). The dynamic changes in subjects and
research hotspots can be clearly showed through bibliometrics (Marx
et al., 2014). They have been used wildly to quantitatively analyze
research in aggregate (Kokol et al., 2020; Thompson & Walker, 2015),
including in fisheries (Aksnes & Browman, 2016; Hiruy et al., 2019; Liu,
2017; Olson & Da Pinto Silva, 2021).
There are six main databases (Web of Science, Scopus, Google
Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Crossref, and Dimensions) used in the
bibliometrics. Google Scholar is not allowed to collect data automati­
cally (Halevi et al., 2017) and Microsoft Academic is prone to mistakes
in document matching (Thelwell, 2017). There is no evidence to clearly
support that Crossref and Dimensions are competent enough for bib­
liometrics. As of 2018, the Web of Science (WOS) has 33,000 journals,
compared to the 23,000 journals in Scopus. Of these two databases, WOS
has a stronger library, with a complete citation network dating back to
1990 (Chadegani et al., 2013), which is more suitable for retrospective
research. In sum, WOS is the most popular platform for bibliometrics
(Hicks et al., 2015; Li et al., 2018) and its core collection both occupies
this dominate position in the bibliometrics and is sufficiently stable
(Harzing & Alakangas, 2016; Zhu & Liu, 2020).
CiteSpace has been the main software used to explore and visualize
scientific literature from WOS since 2004 (Peterson & Ivars, 2004). It is
able to visually present a systematic review of literature by applying
mathematical and computational methods. It has been used by biblio­
metrics researchers in fisheries and other areas, like medicine and social
science (Cui et al., 2018; Fang et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2020). It can
intelligently collect relevant documents in the database, analyze the
203
Aquaculture and Fisheries 8 (2023) 202–210
knowledge links and knowledge networks between referenced and cited
documents, discover the laws of knowledge flow between documents,
and then transfer them into graphs to show the relationship between the
development process and structure of scientific knowledge (Chen,
2006).
2.1. Data collection
The core database of WOS was queried for three keywords: Tuna,
Katsuwonus, and Thunnus. This search was for exclusively those articles
published between 1995 and 2019. The returned list was pared down by
manual review of the title, abstracts, and keywords to a total of 7,268
articles.
2.2. Research method
CiteSpace software (version 5.5.R1) was used to quantify and visu­
alize the bibliographic record. The bibliographic map was illustrated by
the collaboration networks of co-authors, institutes, countries, journals,
and keywords. Research frontiers were obtained by co-citation clus­
tering. CiteSpace also generated a literature common citation network,
clustering network, citation outbreaks, and other related information
(Chen, 2006).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Publication rate and output
The change in the number of articles over time gives us a glimpse of
the interest and development of tuna research (Zhang et al., 2018)
(Fig. 1). Annual articles about tuna increased year by year, with an
overall increase from 89 in 1995 to 453 in 2019.
Using the growth rate of published articles, we split the publication
rate into three phases:
(1) Initial steady phase (1995–2000). The published articles slowly
increased in frequency with no more than 150 papers within each
year. At this stage, there is little attention on the side effects of
things such as overfishing and environmental pollution on tuna.
During this period, some basic information of tuna, such as n-3
fatty acid, species identification and their habits were studied
more frequently.
(2) Rapid development phase (2000–2015). The annual number of
published articles about tuna increased rapidly after 2000, with
an average growth rate of 5.77%. During this period, a total of
4663 articles were published accounting for 64.16% of all the
included outputs (1995–2019).
(3) Steady development phase (2015–2019). The number of pub­
lished articles in this phase did not show an upward trend. From
2015 to 2019, the annual growth rate was between − 3.62% and
1.95%.
3.2. Active countries, institutions, authors, and co-cited references
3.2.1. Countries
Ninety-three countries and regions contributed the 7268 WOS arti­
cles, among which the United States ranked first in the number of arti­
cles, accounting for 25.76% of the total, followed by Japan (13.62%),
Spain (11.47%), Australia (9.98%) France (7.79%), and China (7.44%)
(Fig. 2).
The number of articles and the frequency of citations (Table 1)
revealed that western countries, such as Canada (Average cited
rate:40.71), United Kingdom (Average cited rate:34.39), and the United
States (Average cited rate:29.31) had the most influential articles.
Although China and Japan among the main contributors in terms of
number of papers, their average citation rate was low, indicating a lack
J. Xie et al. Aquaculture and Fisheries 8 (2023) 202–210

Fig. 1. The number and trend of articles from 1995 to 2019.

(Australia), Stanford University (United States), and Kinki University

(Japan). The institution cooperation network map showed that NOAA,
Miami University, British Columbia University, Calif San Diego Uni­
versity, Stanford University, and Hawaii University were on the same
collaborative track, demonstrating the close relationships among the
institutions in the United States. Moreover, cooperation within countries
was higher than the international cooperation between countries. Pro­
duction of articles in the field of tuna research for CSIRO Oceans and
Atmosphere (Australia), National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries
(Japan), Kinki University (Japan), Spanish Institute of Oceanography
(Spain), and Shanghai Ocean University (China) increased substantially,
reflecting the rapid development of tuna research at these institutions in
recent years.
The analysis also revealed that some regions that yielded high tuna
catches also were limited in the publications they produced. Among the
Fig. 2. Map of international cooperation on tuna research.
world’s fishing nations, Indonesia is at the top of tuna catches, occu­
pying 12% of global tuna catch (Galland et al., 2016). It uses unrivaled
gear to fish in the western Pacific Ocean and the western Indian Ocean
Table 1
Information on articles of tuna research from 1995 to 2019. (Galland et al., 2016). Indonesian tunas are always exported abroad
(Suhana et al., 2016). Tunas are also the largest export commodities in
Rank Country Number of articles Total cited rate Average cited rate
the Philippines. The Philippines has become the largest tuna exporter in
1 USA 1872 54,864 29.31 Asia next to Indonesia and the third largest exporter of world tuna catch
2 Japan 990 16,473 16.64
(7%). Thailand is the world’s foremost canning operator and dominates
3 Spain 834 17,736 21.27
4 Australia 725 17,374 23.96 the marketplace for canning-grade tuna (Kuldilok et al., 2013). The
5 France 579 13,697 23.66 reason for the gap between catches and publications in these countries
6 China 541 7129 13.18 should be investigated further to identify those factors that have
7 Italy 410 8754 21.35 contributed to this disparity.
8 Canada 394 16,041 40.71
9 England 269 9252 34.39
10 Mexico 228 2816 12.35 3.2.3. Authors and co-cited references
More than 1901 authors were published tuna articles during the
study period. The top ten most prolific authors accounted for 437 pub­
of breakthrough articles published in these countries. This may be due to lications, or 6.01% of the total (Table 2). Barbara A. Block (at Stanford
some language barriers, as English is not the primary language of pub­ University) was the most prolific author during this period with 90
lication. Therefore, researchers from these two countries should coop­ publications, followed by Soottawat Benjakul (58 articles) at Songkla
erate with foreign scholars in English-language journals to strengthen University, and Haritz Arrizabalaga at AZTI (46 articles).
the impact of their publications. The co-cited author analysis (Table 2, Fig. S1) suggested that Barbara
A. Block, Bruce Collette, and Kurt M. Schaefer were the most cited
3.2.2. Institutions scholars. The total number of citations for the top ten cited publications
The results revealed that 839 unique institutions worldwide pub­ (Table 2) reflect the attention paid to particular topics. Three indicated
lished articles related to tuna from 1995 to 2019. The number of pub­ that using electronic tagging is effective for identifying tuna population
lications from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) structures (Block et al., 2005; Collette et al., 2019). There was also great
(USA) was the greatest (Fig. 3), followed by Tasmania University interest in the need to connect current stock-assessment and

204
J. Xie et al. Aquaculture and Fisheries 8 (2023) 202–210

Fig. 3. Map of institutional cooperation on tuna research.

Table 2
Top 10 authors, co-cited authors, and co-cited references within tuna research from 1995 to 2019.
Rank Author Count Co-cited author Citations Co-cited reference Citations

1 Block BA 90 Block BA 715 Block BA, 2005, Nature, V434, P1121 146
2 Benjakul S 58 Collette BB 485 Block BA, 2011, Nature, V475, P86 108
3 Arrizabalaga H 46 Schaefer KM 459 Fromentin & Powers, 2005, Fish, V6, P281 104
4 Hobday Alistair J 43 Brill RW 444 Block BA, 2001, Science, V293, P1310 102
5 Sawada Y 41 FAO 381 Sawada Y, 2005, Aquac Res, V36, P413 78
6 Murua H 40 Carey FG 344 Rooker JR, 2008, Science, V322, P742 77
7 Dagorn L 39 Pauly D 299 Teo Slh, 2007, Mar Biol, V151, P1 72
8 Maunder Mark N 31 Dagorn L 289 Rooker JR, 2007, Rev Fish Sci, V15, P265 67
9 Rooker JR 26 Fonteneau A 271 Dagorn L, 2013, Fish, V14, P391 62
10 Goni N 23 Fromentin JM 270 Collette BB, 2011, Science, V333, P291 61

management issues to provide more information on biology and ecology sustainable fisheries (Hampton et al., 2005; MacKenzie & Myers, 2007;
of tuna, where the exploitation had caused fish stocks extreme depletion Wang et al., 2009). These collaborating groups all reflect the global
(Fromentin & Powers, 2005). Sustaining tuna aquaculture (Sawada attention on the sustainable development of tuna harvesting.
et al., 2005) was also a topic of interest during this period. The co-author
analysis indicated the presence of five main cooperating teams: A)
3.3. Co-cited journals
Barbara A. Block, Kurt M. Schaefer, and Richard W. Brill, who studied
the horizontal and vertical movements of tuna to explore their distri­
Research on tunas has been published in 358 different journals. The
bution (Block et al., 2005; Brill et al., 1999); B) Jean-Marc Fromentin
10 most popular journals were identified using the number of citations
and ICCAT wanted to solve the recent tuna stock overexploitation by
(Table S1). Most journals were British (4), followed by United Stated (2),
advocating for scientific management (Fromentin et al., 2014; Fro­
Canada (1), and Germany (1). The journal with the most citations was
mentin & Powers, 2005); C) Jay R. Rooker and Steven E. Campana
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, which had 1929 ar­
assessed different nurseries of tuna by examining their otolith chemistry
ticles. Many articles about tuna were also published in Nature (1776)
(Neilson & Campana, 2008; Rooker et al., 2001); D) Patrick Lehodey and
and Science (1765), which are the two top academic journals among the
Alistair J. Hobday presented models that investigated potential changes
journals. Science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
due to anthropogenic activities (Hobday et al., 2011; Lehodey et al.,
the United States of America, Marine Ecology Progress Series, Marine
2008); E) Daniel Pauly, Ransom A. Myers, John Hampton, and Mark N.
Biology, and Plos One have good interrelationships with other journals
Maunder modeled the general tuna stock assessment and pursued
(Fig. 4).

205
J. Xie et al.
Fig. 4. Map of co-cited journal network for articles on tuna research.
3.4. Cluster analysis on tuna
Cluster analysis is an effective method for identifying the latent se­
mantic themes and overlaps (Hossain et al., 2011). Each cluster
Fig. 5. Research timeline presented as a clustering view by topic.
206
Aquaculture and Fisheries 8 (2023) 202–210
represents a certain number of observed terms (Waltman et al., 2010).
Cluster analysis of the overall network (Fig. 5) clearly showed the evo­
lution of researcher concerns through time. There were 19 main clusters,
which were considered to be the hot topics during the 25 year study
period. According to the mapping (Fig. 5, Table 3), the yellower the
color of the nod, the newer the topic is. In last 5 years, various topics
have emerged.
The cluster of #2 fronts and #21 skipjack tuna were found to be
inconsistent with the corresponding collections through a read-through
analysis of each cluster’s representative literature, so we substituted it
with the more appropriate phrases “archival tag” and “peptide”.
According to the literature co-cited timeline view result (Fig. 5), it
shows that (1) Overall, 2000–2010 was a booming period for tuna
research, during which a large number of high-impact research articles
were published, with the most cited article being an investigation of
Atlantic bluefin tuna population structure using electronic tagging
(Block et al., 2005); (2) #2 archival tag, #3 swimming, #4 species
identification, and #7 stock assessment were topics that were histori­
cally paid more attention, but were becoming less popular; (3) #0
bluefin tuna, #1 climate change, #6 bycatch, #8 Mozambique channel,
#9 mercury, #13 blood fluke, #21 peptide, and #22 fair trade were the
topics that became popular recently, and may be projected to continue
to stay relevant to further research.
Sustainable fisheries contribute to maintaining enough fish in the
oceans and healthy tuna populations. #0 bluefin tuna, as the top marine
J. Xie et al.
Table 3
WOS clustering representative study results.
Cluster Cluster Representative topic
year
#0 bluefin tuna 2010 Bluefin tuna is the largest species of tuna, yet its
population has declined dramatically. To better
manage and protect the remaining bluefin tuna
populations, studies have been carried out on
their population structure and migratory
behaviour (Alemany et al., 2010; Rooker et al.,
2008).
#1 climate change 2012 Global warming caused by the increase of global
CO2 may affect the original migration track and
habitat distribution of tuna, which may result in
higher energy consumption during migration
and pose a potential threat to the survival of tuna
(Arrizabalaga et al., 2015; Block et al., 2011).
#2 archival tag 2002 Archival tag is mainly based on satellite remote
sensing and electronic tagging to provide
accurate location data to determine the
migration track and distribution of tuna (Block
et al., 2005).
#3 swimming 1995 Research has focused on the relationship
between the ability to swim at high speed and
the biological structure of tuna. Biological
anatomy reveals that efficient oxygen transport
and rapid digestion are the key factors in
maintaining high energy conversion efficiency
and high-speed movement in tuna (Katz et al.,
2001; Korsmeyer et al., 1996).
#4 species 1995 It is difficult to identify tuna species through
identification processing, and polymerase chain reaction was
used for species identification after processing (
Quinteiro et al., 1998; Jordi Viñas & Tudela,
2009).
#5 histamine 1999 With the decarboxylase enzyme, histamine is
produced by histidine. However, the improper
tuna handling refrigeration after fishing will
cause histamine levels to rise, affecting food
safety (Tsai et al., 2005).
#6 bycatch 2007 Bycatch in tuna longline fisheries resulted in
declined populations of species such as marine
mammals and sharks. It is focused on proposing
rational solutions to reduce bycatch in tuna
fisheries (E. L. Gilman, 2011).
#7 stock 1999 Through the analysis of existing fishery data, the
assessment model of fishery’s influence on biomass and
scale structure is established to promote the
development of fishery conservation and
biological restoration (Watanabe et al., 2003).
#8 Mozambique 2008 The biomass of tuna varies from regions. The
channel nutritional ecology of the tuna and their dietary
structure was studied by stable isotope (B. S.
Graham et al., 2007).
#9 mercury 2005 Assessing the human risk of having tuna which
contains high levels of heavy metals such as
mercury, lead and cadmium (Storelli et al.,
2010).
#11 2003 The genetic characteristics of tuna were
microsatellites analyzed by the analysis of base-pair sequences
(J Viñas et al., 2004).
#12 target- 1996 Using acoustic waves and comparing differences
strength between day and night behaviour (Josse et al.,
1998), we can understand the movements of
tuna on smaller temporal and spatial scales
#13 blood fluke 2007 There are several parasites on tuna such as
blood-sucking worms. Thus, there is a need to
provide a reference for tuna farming (Ogawa
et al., 2011).
#15 temperature 1999 Temperature as well as other factors have
influences on tuna physiology (Shiels & Farrell,
1997).
#16 Pacific 1997 The Pacific tuna fishery is one of the largest in
the world, and it is vital to pay attention to the
changes in the Pacific tuna population (
Bertignac et al., 1998).
1998
207
Aquaculture and Fisheries 8 (2023) 202–210
Table 3 (continued )
Cluster Cluster Representative topic
year
#17 otolith Different populations of tuna can be identified
chemistry and distinguished according to the content of
different elements in otolith (Rooker et al.,
2003).
#19 fatty acid 1991 The change of fatty acid content in tuna before
and after the process treatment (Saito et al.,
1995).
#21 peptide 2013 Polypeptides for food use are obtained by
enzymatic hydrolysis of tuna protein (
Chalamaiah et al., 2012; Chi et al., 2015).
#22 fair trade 2011 With the rapid development of the tuna fishery,
there is a need for fisheries management
organizations to plan and manage the fishery for
the sustainable development of fishery resources
(Langley et al., 2009).
predators and the largest species of tuna, play important roles in
maintaining the balance of the marine ecosystem. Although bluefin tuna
account for only less than 10% tuna stocks, they are one of the highest
values because of the world-wide markets for sashimi, and always priced
on the sashimi markets around the world. Overfishing has resulted in a
reduction in bluefin tuna populations, with 95% of Pacific bluefins
caught during their adolescence. These population’s biomasses have
been slow to recover and been declared endangered by the IUCN Red
List. Overfishing has also produced stress on the food chain. Aquaculture
has allowed sustainable production. Farmed bluefin tuna have gradually
replaced wild caught product and have a very high market value. In
addition to Bluefin tuna, bigeye and yellowfin tuna stocks have also been
overfished in some places globally (Ovando et al., 2020; Winker et al.,
2019).
Tuna fisheries are also associated with significant #6 bycatch prob­
lems (Miller et al., 2017). Bycatch can be categorized into two groups
(Amande et al., 2012): the incidental catches of non-target animals, such
as marine mammals, seabirds, marine turtles, and sharks (Hall &
Mainprize, 2005) and the undersized individuals of target species. There
are many ways to catch tuna and each has different levels of bycatch.
The purse seine is the most advanced and productive fishing gear, ac­
counting for roughly 60% of all tuna catches, while longline is a distant
second, representing about 14% of catches, followed by jigging, trolling,
and gillnetting. However, purse seining is quite indiscriminate, with a
high volume of bycatch that includes juvenile tuna. Thus, purse seining
should be avoided as a highly unsustainable fishing method. Many
longline vessels also target other non-target species. Bycatch such as
turtles, swordfish and sharks may die underwater due to their long time
spent on the baited hooks with longline fishing (Croxall et al., 2012).
Among these methods, pole and line fishing contribute to the least
amount of bycatch. Indeed, minimizing bycatch, especially the endan­
gered, threatened, and protected (ETP) species is a significant challenges
and priorities. Consumers are willing to ensure their tuna fish comes
from responsibly-caught. Therefore, many retailers have committed to
discontinuing sales of Fish Aggregating Devices caught tuna.
Ocean warming due to #1 climate change may alter the original
migration routes, the spawning and hatching conditions of tuna (Hazen
et al., 2013). The habitat may be driven towards colder water and
greater depths. Fishermen who only catch tuna in one place may lose
their livelihoods. Tuna going to a new habitat may have different food or
less food available, resulting in some problems for their survival.
Moreover, these non-native habitat types may have a detrimental effect
on the fish that live there already.
With increasing marine pollution, harmful substances will enter into
tuna flesh and cause problems. Mercury has posed a serious human
health risk, along with other heavy metals. Inorganic mercury (Hg) from
terrestrial sources deposit into the ocean and is methylated by bacteria
in the water. Methylmercury (MeHg) enter the marine food web as taken
J. Xie et al.
by phytoplankton. Tuna are apex predators, leading to their higher
MeHg than others. As they are long-lived, their bioaccumulation of
MeHg is generally relative to their growth and age. In fact, persistent
organic pollutants (POPs) in tuna have also been a big challenge for tuna
and human health. Thus, the health risk of tuna consumption has been
important to assess (Drevnick et al., 2015; Okyere et al., 2015).
The current and research trends into the future identifies the influ­
ential factors of tuna survival and focuses on how to improve their
status. Traditional conservation methods have had little effect on sus­
tainable tuna fisheries. Thus, there is a need to find solutions to manage
them effectively with quota allocation to promote the tuna industry
(#22 fair trade) (Alemany et al., 2010; Saito et al., 1995). In this way,
both preventing overfishing and reducing bycatch are beneficial for
improving fisheries management (Gilman et al., 2014). Tuna are
managed by five regional fishery management organization (RFMOs)
internationally (McCluney et al., 2019). The RFMOs are formed by
member nations or countries which share interests in a particular region
of international waters or of highly migratory species and manage stocks
based on geographical zone, except for the CCSBT (Commission for the
Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna). Each organization consists of
21–50 member countries. They are tasked with conducting regular stock
assessments and develop scientific advice on tuna conservation.
4. Conclusions
The sustainable tuna development has attracted the attention of
global scholars for several years. With an increasing number of pub­
lished papers, bibliometrics helps us understand tuna researches better
from the perspective of time and space. In this paper, 7268 tuna-centric
English language publications from 1995 to 2019 in Web of Science
were taken as the object of study and analyzed by the visualization
software CiteSpace. The title, abstract, and keywords were used to
represent the research content and showed the current status and active
frontiers in the field of tuna research in the form of a knowledge map.
We concluded that, in terms of temporal distribution, the annual
number of articles published was on the rise. In terms of spatial distri­
bution, 93 countries and regions have been engaged in tuna research,
with developed countries having produced more attributions. Certain
regions that yield high tuna catches, such as Indonesia, Philippines, and
Thailand, produced limited research. Cooperative studies between
different regions were also limited. In the future, international research
cooperation should be enhanced to better study tunas.
Emerging research trends relative to tunas were multidimensional
and time-dependent, including 19 main clusters. These clusters focused
on sustainable fisheries, including their influential factors and man­
agement methods.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jingqian Xie: Writing – original draft. Zhihe Bian: searched the
related references. Qiang Wu: visualized the data. Lin Tao: Data
curation. Feng Wu: Writing – review & editing. Tian Lin: Writing –
review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that there is no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgment
This work was financially supported by National Natural Science
Foundation of China (NSFC) (No. 41806126) and China Postdoctoral
Science Foundation (No. 2019M653101).
208
Aquaculture and Fisheries 8 (2023) 202–210
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.aaf.2021.09.005.
References
Aksnes, D. W., & Browman, H. I. (2016). An overview of global research effort in fisheries
science. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73(4), 1004–1011.
Alemany, F., Quintanilla, L., Velez-Belchí, P., García, A., Cortés, D., Rodríguez, J. M.,
et al. (2010). Characterization of the spawning habitat of Atlantic bluefin tuna and
related species in the Balearic Sea (western Mediterranean). Progress in
Oceanography, 86(1–2), 21–38.
Amande, M. J., Chassot, E., Chavance, P., Murua, H., de Molina, A. D., & Bez, N. (2012).
Precision in bycatch estimates: The case of tuna purse-seine fisheries in the Indian
ocean. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 69(8), 1501–1510.
Arrizabalaga, H., Dufour, F., Kell, L., Merino, G., Ibaibarriaga, L., Chust, G., et al. (2015).
Global habitat preferences of commercially valuable tuna. Deep Sea Research Part II:
Topical Studies in Oceanography, 113, 102–112.
Bertignac, M., Lehodey, P., & Hampton, J. (1998). A spatial population dynamics
simulation model of tropical tunas using a habitat index based on environmental
parameters. Fisheries Oceanography, 7(3-4), 326–334.
Block, B. A., Jonsen, I. D., Jorgensen, S. J., Winship, A. J., Shaffer, S. A., Bograd, S. J.,
et al. (2011). Tracking apex marine predator movements in a dynamic ocean. Nature,
475(7354), 86–90.
Block, B. A., Teo, S. L., Walli, A., Boustany, A., Stokesbury, M. J., Farwell, C. J., et al.
(2005). Electronic tagging and population structure of Atlantic bluefin tuna. Nature,
434(7037), 1121–1127.
Brill, R., Block, B., Boggs, C., Bigelow, K., Freund, E. V., & Marcinek, D. J. (1999).
Horizontal movements and depth distribution of large adult yellowfin tuna (Thunnus
albacares) near the Hawaiian islands, recorded using ultrasonic telemetry:
Implications for the physiological ecology of pelagic fishes. Marine Biology, 133(3),
395–408.
Campbell, H., Kennedy, J., & McIlgorm, A. (2002). Conservation and Optimum Utilization
of Southern Bluefin Tuna.
Chadegani, A. A., Salehi, H., Yunus, M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., & Ale
Ebrahim, N. (2013). A comparison between two main academic literature
collections: Web of Science and Scopus databases. Asian Social Science, 9(5), 18–26.
Chalamaiah, M., Hemalatha, R., & Jyothirmayi, T. (2012). Fish protein hydrolysates:
Proximate composition, amino acid composition, antioxidant activities and
applications: A review. Food Chemistry, 135(4), 3020–3038.
Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient
patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science
and Technology, 57(3), 359–377.
Chi, C.-F., Hu, F.-Y., Wang, B., Li, Z.-R., & Luo, H.-Y. (2015). Influence of amino acid
compositions and peptide profiles on antioxidant capacities of two protein
hydrolysates from skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) dark muscle. Marine Drugs, 13
(5), 2580–2601.
Chotikachinda, R., Tantikitti, C., Benjakul, S., & Rustad, T. (2018). Tuna viscera
hydrolysate products prepared by different enzyme preparations improve the feed
intake and growth of Asian seabass, Lates calcarifer, fed total fishmeal replacement
diets. Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology, 40(1).
Christensen, J. (2016). Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in historical
perspective. In Perspectives on oceans past (pp. 133–153). Springer.
Collette, B., Graves, J., & Kells, V. A. (2019). Tunas and Billfishes of the World Hardcover.
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Coulter, A., Cashion, T., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Popov, S., Tsui, G., Le Manach, F.,
et al. (2020). Using harmonized historical catch data to infer the expansion of global
tuna fisheries. Fisheries Research, 221, Article 105379.
Croxall, J. P., Butchart, S. H., Lascelles, B., Stattersfield, A. J., Sullivan, B., Symes, A.,
et al. (2012). Seabird conservation status, threats and priority actions: A global
assessment. Bird Conservation International, 22(1), 1–34.
Cui, Y., Mou, J., & Liu, Y. (2018). Knowledge mapping of social commerce research: A
visual analysis using CiteSpace. Electronic Commerce Research, 18(4), 837–868.
Drevnick, P. E., Lamborg, C. H., & Horgan, M. J. (2015). Increase in mercury in Pacific
yellowfin tuna. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, 34(4), 931–934.
Duffy, L. M., Kuhnert, P. M., Pethybridge, H. R., Young, J. W., Olson, R. J., Logan, J. M.,
et al. (2017). Global trophic ecology of yellowfin, bigeye, and albacore tunas:
Understanding predation on micronekton communities at ocean-basin scales. Deep-
Sea Research Part II Topical Studies in Oceanography, 140, 55–73.
Elgamouz, A., Alsaidi, R., Alsaidi, A., Zahri, M., Almehdi, A., & Bajou, K. (2019). The
effects of storage on quality and nutritional values of Ehrenberg’s snapper Muscles
(Lutjanus Ehrenbergi): Evaluation of natural Antioxidants effect on the denaturation
of proteins. Biomolecules, 9(9), 442.
Erauskin-Extramiana, M., Arrizabalaga, H., Hobday, A. J., Cabré, A., Ibaibarriaga, L.,
Arregui, I., et al. (2019). Large-scale distribution of tuna species in a warming ocean.
Global Change Biology, 25(6), 2043–2060.
Essington, T. E., Schindler, D. E., Olson, R. J., Kitchell, J. F., Boggs, C., & Hilborn, R.
(2002). Alternative fisheries and the predation rate of yellowfin tuna in the eastern
Pacific Ocean. Ecological Applications, 12(3), 724–734.
Fang, Y., Yin, J., & Wu, B. (2018). Climate change and tourism: A scientometric analysis
using CiteSpace. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(1), 108–126.
J. Xie et al.
Fromentin, J. M., Bonhommeau, S., Arrizabalaga, H., & Kell, L. T. (2014). The spectre of
uncertainty in management of exploited fish stocks: The illustrative case of Atlantic
bluefin tuna. Marine Policy, 47, 8–14.
Fromentin, J. M., & Powers, J. E. (2005). Atlantic bluefin tuna: Population dynamics,
ecology, fisheries and management. Fish and Fisheries, 6(4), 281–306.
Galland, G., Rogers, A., & Nickson, A. (2016). Netting billions: A global valuation of tuna.
Gilman, E. L. (2011). Bycatch governance and best practice mitigation technology in
global tuna fisheries. Marine Policy, 35(5), 590–609.
Gilman, E., Passfield, K., & Nakamura, K. (2014). Performance of regional fisheries
management organizations: Ecosystem-based governance of bycatch and discards.
Fish and Fisheries, 15(2), 327–351.
Graham, B. S., Grubbs, D., Holland, K., & Popp, B. N. (2007). A rapid ontogenetic shift in
the diet of juvenile yellowfin tuna from Hawaii. Marine Biology, 150(4), 647–658.
Haddaway, N., Woodcock, P., Macura, B., & Collins, A. (2015). Making literature reviews
more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews. Conservation
Biology, 29(6), 1596–1605.
Halevi, G., Moed, H., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2017). Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of
scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation-Review of the
literature. Journal of informetrics, 11(3), 823–834.
Hall, S. J., & Mainprize, B. M. (2005). Managing by-catch and discards: How much
progress are we making and how can we do better? Fish and Fisheries, 6(2), 134–155.
Hampton, J., Sibert, J. R., Kleiber, P., Maunder, M. N., & Harley, S. J. (2005). Decline of
Pacific tuna populations exaggerated? Nature, 434(7037), E1–E2.
Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google scholar, Scopus and the web of science: A
longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787–804.
Hazen, E. L., Jorgensen, S., Rykaczewski, R. R., Bograd, S. J., Foley, D. G., Jonsen, I. D.,
et al. (2013). Predicted habitat shifts of Pacific top predators in a changing climate.
Nature Climate Change, 3(3), 234–238.
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The
Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431.
Hiruy, K., Murphy, R., Lewis, T., White, W. T., & Purcell, S. W. (2019). Measuring
scientific impact of fisheries and aquaculture research-for-development projects in
South East Asia and the Pacific. Research Evaluation, 28(4), 313–325.
Hobday, A. J., Hartog, J. R., Spillman, C. M., & Alves, O. (2011). Seasonal forecasting of
tuna habitat for dynamic spatial management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences, 68(5), 898–911.
Hossain, M. M., Prybutok, V., & Evangelopoulos, N. (2011). Causal latent semantic
analysis (cLSA): An illustration. International Business Research, 4(2), 38.
Huang, H.-W., & Liu, K.-M. (2010). Bycatch and discards by Taiwanese large-scale tuna
longline fleets in the Indian Ocean. Fisheries Research, 106(3), 261–270.
Josse, E., Bach, P., & Dagorn, L. (1998). Simultaneous observations of tuna movements
and their prey by sonic tracking and acoustic. Surveys, 371, 61–69.
Katz, S. L., Syme, D. A., & Shadwick, R. E. (2001). Enhanced power in yellowfin tuna.
Nature, 410(6830), 770–771.
Kokol, P., Blažun Vošner, H., & Završnik, J. (2020). Application of bibliometrics in
medicine: A historical bibliometrics analysis. In Health information and libraries
journal. Advance online publication.
Korsmeyer, K., Dewar, H., Lai, N., & Graham, J. (1996). The aerobic capacity of tunas:
Adaptation for multiple metabolic demands. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology
Part A: Physiology, 113(1), 17–24.
Kuldilok, K. S., Dawson, P., & Lingard, J. (2013). The export competitiveness of the tuna
industry in Thailand. British Food Journal, 115(3), 328–341.
Langley, A., Wright, A., Hurry, G., Hampton, J., Aqorua, T., & Rodwell, L. (2009). Slow
steps towards management of the world’s largest tuna fishery. Marine Policy, 33(2),
271–279.
Lehodey, P., Senina, I., & Murtugudde, R. (2008). A spatial ecosystem and populations
dynamics model (SEAPODYM)–Modeling of tuna and tuna-like populations. Progress
in Oceanography, 78(4), 304–318.
Lehodey, P., Senina, I., Nicol, S., & Hampton, J. (2015). Modelling the impact of climate
change on South Pacific albacore tuna. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in
Oceanography, 113, 246–259.
Li, K., Rollins, J., & Yan, E. (2018). Web of science use in published research and review
papers 1997-2017: A selective, dynamic, cross-domain, content-based analysis.
Scientometrics, 115(1), 1–20.
Liu, F. (2017). A worldwide bibliometric analysis of Antarctic krill research during 1960
to 2015. Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment, 15(4), 357–364.
MacKenzie, B. R., & Myers, R. A. (2007). The development of the northern European
fishery for north Atlantic bluefin tuna. Thunnus thynnus during 1900–1950, 87(2–3),
229–239.
Majkowski, J. (2007). Global fishery resources of tuna and tuna-like species (Vol. 483). Food
& Agriculture Org.
Maqbool, A., Strandvik, B., & Stallings, V. A. (2011). The skinny on tuna fat: Health
implications. Public Health Nutrition, 14(11), 2049–2054.
Marx, W., Bornmann, L., Barth, A., & Leydesdorff, L. (2014). Detecting the historical
roots of research fields by reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS). Journal of
the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 751–764.
McCluney, J. K., Anderson, C. M., & Anderson, J. L. (2019). The fishery performance
indicators for global tuna fisheries. Nature Communications, 10(1), 1–9.
Mesías, M., Holgado, F., Sevenich, R., Briand, J. C., Márquez Ruiz, G., & Morales, F. J.
(2015). Fatty acids profile in canned tuna and sardine after retort sterilization and
high pressure thermal sterilization treatment. Digital.CSIC, 54, 171–178.
Miller, K. I., Nadheeh, I., Jauharee, A. R., Anderson, R. C., & Adam, M. S. (2017). Bycatch
in the Maldivian pole-and-line tuna fishery. PloS One, 12(5), Article e0177391.
Neilson, J. D., & Campana, S. E. (2008). A validated description of age and growth of
western Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences, 65(8), 1523–1527.
209
Aquaculture and Fisheries 8 (2023) 202–210
Nicklisch, S. C., Bonito, L. T., Sandin, S., & Hamdoun, A. (2017). Geographic differences
in persistent organic pollutant levels of yellowfin tuna. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 125(6), Article 067014.
Ogawa, K., Ishimaru, K., Shirakashi, S., Takami, I., & Grabner, D. (2011). Cardicola
opisthorchis n. sp.(Trematoda: Aporocotylidae) from the Pacific bluefin tuna,
Thunnus orientalis (Temminck & Schlegel, 1844), cultured in Japan. Parasitology
International, 60(3), 307–312.
Okyere, H., Voegborlo, R., & Agorku, S. (2015). Human exposure to mercury, lead and
cadmium through consumption of canned mackerel, tuna, pilchard and sardine. Food
Chemistry, 179, 331–335.
Olson, J., & Da Pinto Silva, P. (2021). Science, social networks, and collaboration: An
analysis of publications in fisheries science from 1990 to 2018. Article fsab003. In
ICES journal of marine science. Advance online publication.
Ovando, D., Libecap, G. D., Millage, K. D., & Thomas, L. (2020). Coasean Approaches to
ending overfishing: Bigeye Tuna Conservation in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean.
National Bureau of Economic Research.
Öztürk, B. (2015). Nature and extent of the illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU)
fishing in the Mediterranean Sea. Journal of the Black Sea/Mediterranean Environment,
21(1), 67–91.
Peterson, I. (2004). Mapping scientific frontiers. Science News Online, 65(11).
Pillai, N. G., & Satheeshkumar, P. (2012). Biology, fishery, conservation and
management of Indian Ocean tuna fisheries. Ocean Science Journal, 47(4), 411–433.
Quinteiro, J., Sotelo, C. G., Rehbein, H., Pryde, S. E., Medina, I., Pérez-Martín, R., et al.
(1998). Use of mtDNA direct polymerase chain reaction (PCR) sequencing and PCR-
restriction fragment length polymorphism methodologies in species identification of
canned tuna. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 46(4), 1662–1669.
Rooker, J. R., Secor, D. H., De Metrio, G., Schloesser, R., Block, B. A., & Neilson, J. D.
(2008). Natal homing and connectivity in Atlantic bluefin tuna populations. Science,
322(5902), 742–744.
Rooker, J. R., Secor, D. H., Zdanowicz, V. S., De Metrio, G., & Relini, L. O. (2003).
Identification of Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) stocks from putative
nurseries using otolith chemistry. Fisheries Oceanography, 12(2), 75–84.
Rooker, J. R., Secor, D. H., Zdanowicz, V. S., & Itoh, T. (2001). Discrimination of
northern bluefin tuna from nursery areas in the Pacific Ocean using otolith
chemistry. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 218, 275–282.
Saito, H., Watanabe, T., & Murase, T. (1995). The fatty acid composition characteristic of
a highly migratory fish, with seasonal variation of docosahexaenoic acid content in
lipid of bonito (Euthynnus pelamis). Bioscience, Biotechnology and Biochemistry, 59
(11), 2186–2188.
Sardenne, F., Bodin, N., Chassot, E., Amiel, A., Fouche, E., Degroote, M., et al. (2016).
Trophic niches of sympatric tropical tuna in the Western Indian Ocean inferred by
stable isotopes and neutral fatty acids. Progress in Oceanography, 146, 75–88.
Sawada, Y., Okada, T., Miyashita, S., Murata, O., & Kumai, H. (2005). Completion of the
Pacific bluefin tuna Thunnus orientalis (Temminck et Schlegel) life cycle.
Aquaculture Research, 36(5), 413–421.
Sharp, G. D. (2001). Tuna oceanography—an applied science. Fish Physiology, 19,
345–389.
Shiels, H., & Farrell, A. (1997). The effect of temperature and adrenaline on the relative
importance of the sarcoplasmic reticulum in contributing Ca2+ to force
development in isolated ventricular trabeculae from rainbow trout. Journal of
Experimental Biology, 200(11), 1607–1621.
Storelli, M. M., Barone, G., Cuttone, G., Giungato, D., & Garofalo, R. (2010). Occurrence
of toxic metals (Hg, Cd and Pb) in fresh and canned tuna: Public health implications.
Food and Chemical Toxicology, 48(11), 3167–3170.
Suhana, K. T., Adrianto, L., & Fahrudin, A. (2016). Tuna industries competitiveness in
international market. Case of Indonesia. Aacl Bioflux, 9(6), 1251–1259.
Thelwall, M. (2017). Microsoft academic: A multidisciplinary comparison of citation
counts with Scopus and Mendeley for 29 journals. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4),
1201–1212.
Thompson, D. F., & Walker, C. K. (2015). A descriptive and historical review of
bibliometrics with applications to medical sciences. Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of
Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy, 35(6), 551–559.
Tsai, Y.-H., Lin, C.-Y., Chang, S.-C., Chen, H.-C., Kung, H.-F., Wei, C.-I., et al. (2005).
Occurrence of histamine and histamine-forming bacteria in salted mackerel in
Taiwan. Food Microbiology, 22(5), 461–467.
Ueno, D., Inoue, S., Takahashi, S., Ikeda, K., Tanaka, H., Subramanian, A., et al. (2004).
Global pollution monitoring of butyltin compounds using skipjack tuna as a
bioindicator. Environmental Pollution, 127(1), 1–12.
van Raan, A. (2019). Measuring science: Basic Principles and application of advanced
bibliometrics. In W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, & M. Thelwall (Eds.), Springer
handbooks. Springer handbook of science and technology indicators (pp. 237–280).
Springer International Publishing.
Velut, G., Delon, F., Mérigaud, J. P., Tong, C., Duflos, G., Boissan, F., et al. (2019).
Histamine food poisoning: A sudden, large outbreak linked to fresh yellowfin tuna
from Reunion island, France, April 2017. Euro Surveillance, 24(22), Article 1800405.
Viñas, J., Bremer, J. A., & Pla, C. (2004). Inter-oceanic genetic differentiation among
albacore (Thunnus alalunga) populations. Marine Biology, 145(2), 225–232.
Viñas, J., & Tudela, S. (2009). A validated methodology for genetic identification of tuna
species (genus Thunnus). PloS One, 4(10), Article e7606.
Waltman, L., Van Eck, N. J., & Noyons, E. C. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and
clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629–635.
Wang, S.-P., Maunder, M. N., Aires-da-Silva, A., & Bayliff, W. H. (2009). Evaluating
fishery impacts: Application to bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) in the eastern Pacific
Ocean. Fisheries Research, 99(2), 106–111.
J. Xie et al.
Watanabe, K. H., Desimone, F. W., Thiyagarajah, A., Hartley, W. R., & Hindrichs, A. E.
(2003). Fish tissue quality in the lower Mississippi River and health risks from fish
consumption. The Science of the Total Environment, 302(1–3), 109–126.
Winker, H., Walter, J., Cardinale, M., & Fu, D. (2019). A multivariate lognormal Monte-
Carlo approach for estimating structural uncertainty about the stock status and future
projections for Indian Ocean Yellowfin tuna. IOTC-2019-WPTT21-51.
210
Aquaculture and Fisheries 8 (2023) 202–210
Wu, J., Jia, D., Wei, Z., & Xin, D. (2020). Development trends and frontiers of ocean big
data research based on CiteSpace. Water, 12(6), 1560.
Zhang, C., Li, Z., & Zhang, J. (2018). A survey on visualization for scientific literature
topics. Journal of Visualization, 21(2), 321–335.
Zhu, J., & Liu, W. (2020). A tale of two databases: The use of web of science and Scopus
in academic papers. Scientometrics, 123(1), 321–335.