How ecological processes shape the outcomes of stock enhancement and harvest regulations in recreational fisheries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fish stocking and harvest regulations are frequently used to maintain or enhance freshwater recreational fisheries and contribute to fish conservation. However, their relative effectiveness has rarely been systematically evaluated using quantitative models that account for key size- and density-dependent ecological processes and adaptive responses of anglers. We present an integrated model of freshwater recreational fisheries where the population dynamics of two model species affect the effort dynamics of recreational anglers. With this model, we examined how stocking various fish densities and sizes (fry, fingerlings, and adults) performed relative to minimum-length limits using a variety of biological, social, and economic performance measures, while evaluating trade-offs. Four key findings are highlighted. First, stocking often augmented the exploited fish population, but size- and density-dependent bottlenecks limited the number of fry and fingerlings surviving to a catchable size in self-sustaining populations. The greatest enhancement of the catchable fish population occurred when large fish that escaped early bottlenecks were stocked, but this came at the cost of wild-stock replacement, thereby demonstrating a fundamental trade-off between fisheries benefits and conservation. Second, the relative performance of stocking naturally reproducing populations was largely independent of habitat quality and was generally low. Third, stocking was only economically advisable when natural reproduction was impaired or absent, stocking rates were low, and enough anglers benefitted from stocking to offset the associated costs. Fourth, in self-sustaining fish populations, minimum-length limits generally outperformed stocking when judged against a range of biological, social and economic objectives. By contrast, stocking in culture-based fisheries often generated substantial benefits. Collectively, our study demonstrates that size- and density-dependent processes, and broadly the degree of natural recruitment, drive the biological, social, and economic outcomes of popular management actions in recreational fisheries. To evaluate these outcomes and the resulting trade-offs, integrated fisheries-management models that explicitly consider the feedbacks among ecological and social processes are needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".