Global assessment of marine and freshwater recreational fish reveals mismatch in climate change vulnerability and conservation effort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recreational fisheries contribute substantially to the sociocultural and economic well-being of coastal and riparian regions worldwide, but climate change threatens their sustainability. Fishery managers require information on how climate change will impact key recreational species; however, the absence of a global assessment hinders both directed and widespread conservation efforts. In this study, we present the first global climate change vulnerability assessment of recreationally targeted fish species from marine and freshwater environments (including diadromous fishes). We use climate change projections and data on species' physiological and ecological traits to quantify and map global climate vulnerability and analyze these patterns alongside the indices of socioeconomic value and conservation effort to determine where efforts are sufficient and where they might fall short. We found that over 20% of recreationally targeted fishes are vulnerable to climate change under a high emission scenario. Overall, marine fishes had the highest number of vulnerable species, concentrated in regions with sensitive habitat types (e.g., coral reefs). However, freshwater fishes had higher proportions of species at risk from climate change, with concentrations in northern Europe, Australia, and southern Africa. Mismatches in conservation effort and vulnerability were found within all regions and life-history groups. A key pattern was that current conservation effort focused primarily on marine fishes of high socioeconomic value rather than on the freshwater and diadromous fishes that were predicted to be proportionately more vulnerable. While several marine regions were notably lacking in protection (e.g., Caribbean Sea, Banda Sea), only 19% of vulnerable marine species were without conservation effort. By contrast, 72% of freshwater fishes and 33% of diadromous fishes had no measures in place, despite their high vulnerability and cultural value. The spatial and taxonomic analyses presented here provide guidance for the future conservation and management of recreational fisheries as climate change progresses.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".