MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415610436 · doi:10.1080/23308249.2025.2549054

Adaptive Fisher Behavior Alone Can Induce Tipping Points and Stock Collapse: A Synthesis of Bioeconomic Theory That Applies to All Capture Fisheries Under Open Access

2025· article· en· W4415610436 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thang Dao, Robert Arlinghaus, Elias Ehrlich, Martin F. Quaas

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStock (firearms)BioeconomicsFish stockEconomic modelFisheries management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sustainability of capture fisheries faces threats from tipping points, regime shifts, and alternative stable states. Examples like the Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) collapse in Newfoundland and more recently the Western Baltic Sea highlight the potential for abrupt stock declines and slow recovery even after a moratorium on harvest. The mechanisms triggering tipping points and regime shifts, especially the role of adaptive behavior of fishers, however, lacks comprehensive understanding. In this paper, a systematic literature review on tipping points in commercial and recreational fisheries is presented. This portion of the synthesis revealed a limited knowledge base biased toward studies explaining regime shifts via harvest-induced ecological mechanisms or interactions of ecological and social processes. The explicit role of adaptive behavior of fishers, however, was found to be underexplored. To address this gap, single-species biomass models with density-dependent fish population growth were extended and linked to diverse benefit functions that reflected realistic behavioral responses of commercial, subsistence, and recreational fisheries under open access. The bioeconomic synthesis revealed that adaptive human behavior alone can trigger tipping points and stock collapse, even under fully compensatory single-species fish population dynamics. Specifically, non-linear utility functions that integrate stock sizes into fishing attractiveness to humans via expected catches drive behavioral feedbacks that can lead to crossing of tipping points. The fishing skill-to-cost ratio – a measure of expected benefits-over-costs – critically dictates tipping point occurrence. High catch efficiency and generally large benefits received while targeting low stock sizes maintains effort and fosters tipping points, signifying how technological advancements, gear improvements, reduced costs (e.g., through subsidies) and utility attached to effort alone (e.g., in recreational fisheries) may all contribute to fisheries destabilization. Tipping and depensation can happen even in the absence of hyperstability in catch rates. In recreational fisheries, aversion to fish harvests, e.g., because fishing becomes boring at high catch and harvest rates, further impacts tipping potential, by reducing the responsiveness of effort at low stock sizes. Tipping points only occur at intermediate fisher numbers: when numbers are low, stable high fish biomasses exist, when numbers are too high, stocks are always collapsed. These results collectively indicate how the combination of type of capture fishery, fisher preferences, technology, costs, and number of fishers dictate the presence or absence of tipping points via adaptive fisher behavior alone. The bioeconomic synthesis that is presented highlights the key role of effort investment behavior of fishers in shaping tipping points in open-access fisheries across commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualmedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews in Fisheries Science & AquacultureSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207