A global review of marine recreational spearfishing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recreational spearfishing is a fishing method that occurs globally, yet receives considerably less attention in the scientific literature relative to other recreational fishing methods, such as angling. Lack of scientific information on spearfishing may negatively affect the development and management of marine recreational fisheries. We conducted a systematic review of 102 peer-reviewed papers published between 1967 and 2022 pertaining to marine recreational spearfishing. Based on this literature review, we provide an overview of key insights across social, economic, and ecological dimensions of marine recreational spearfishing. While spearfishers represent less than 5% of marine recreational fishers, the participants are younger and may differ from recreational anglers in their motivations, with suggestions of increased well-being generated from a close connection with the sea during underwater fishing. Recreational spearfishers mostly target species of moderate to high levels of vulnerability that are mid to high trophic level carnivores. Though spearfishers can deliberately target larger individuals of exploited populations, this is not a generalizable pattern. Despite a growing body of research on the ecological impacts of marine recreational spearfishing, there is limited knowledge of these effects and their mechanisms across biological levels of organization (e.g., individual, population, community and ecosystem) compared with those of other fishing methods. Recreational spearfishers can contribute to advances in marine ecological knowledge, and inclusive participatory management could represent a key step towards transformative sustainable development of marine recreational spearfishing. Throughout the review, we identify gaps in the research and areas where future research is needed to better inform the socio-economic importance, ecosystem impacts and future management of marine recreational spearfishing.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".