ABSTRACT Fishing‐induced evolution (FIE) has emerged as a key concern in fisheries science, yet it remains unclear how different fishing sectors contribute to evolutionary change. Here we examine how large‐scale fisheries (LSF) and small‐scale fisheries (SSF) may differ in the pathways through which fishing mortality becomes trait‐dependent in fish populations. We synthesise how fishery characteristics—including fishing intensity, spatial and temporal targeting, gear diversity, technological capacity, target breadth and governance structures—may influence the timing, consistency and targets of selection, thereby shaping evolutionary outcomes. We suggest that SSF may generate more heterogeneous selection regimes, acting on individual variation in behavioural, ecological and vulnerability‐related traits through partial harvesting, diverse gear use and localised fishing practices. In contrast, LSF may generate consistent patterns of trait‐dependent mortality because of operational scale, greater catch capacity, advanced technologies and standardised management frameworks. These differences do not necessarily imply stronger or weaker overall selection, but suggest that SSF and LSF may differ in the mechanisms through which phenotypes become exposed to fishing mortality and the traits most likely to be affected. Differences in target specificity, bycatch and discard practices may also contribute to divergent evolutionary pathways between sectors. While high mortality remains an important driver of life‐history evolution, sector‐specific mechanisms may shape trait trajectories, including behaviour, growth, habitat use and migration. We highlight key knowledge gaps and emphasise the need to integrate evolutionary perspectives into both LSF and SSF management, especially given technological advancement and potential future regulation and standardisation of SSF practices.
ABSTRACT Biomass‐based reference points are used to define stock status and set sustainable exploitation levels. Risks should be equivalent across stocks, regardless of the data and knowledge available to assess them by maintaining comparable probabilities of achieving targets and avoiding limits across agreed time scales. This study introduces , the lowest biomass from which a stock can rebuild to a target within an agreed time‐frame under a specified fishing scenario, and , the time required to rebuild from a given state. Once (or an equivalent biomass threshold), , and a harvest control rule defining are agreed, is a random variable with a probability distribution. can serve as a limit or a trigger in harvest control rules. Using age‐structured projections for 82 Northeast Atlantic stocks, we summarise the relationship between and life‐history covariates (, steepness) across stock–recruitment scenarios. Recovery is faster for stocks with higher per capita productivity (i.e., ) and steepness, with little difference between Beverton–Holt and Ricker forms once these characteristics are accounted for. The approach shifts emphasis from recruitment impairment to rebuilding capacity, makes the trade‐off with yield during rebuilding explicit, and provides a common currency for risk‐equivalent advice across assessment models and data tiers.
ABSTRACT The demand for marine resources is increasing, and an increasing number of fish stocks are fully or overexploited. To turn this downward projection around, states need to strengthen the effectiveness, equity and implementation of fisheries management measures. One important component that often determines the performance of fisheries management is the capacity of the participating parties. Despite the increased global awareness regarding the need for enhanced capacity support, many coastal developing states still lack the skills and tools to implement conservation and management measures effectively. In this paper, we highlight some of the current issues in capacity building, looking at the individual, national and regional levels. We argue that capacity is a core determinant of equity and effectiveness in fisheries governance. Furthermore, we describe the potential of complementary mechanisms to provide capacity support. Specifically, we focus on the climate change regime and the Agreement on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction. Unless coastal developing states have the sustained scientific, legal, technical, institutional and financial capacity to participate meaningfully in regional fisheries management organisations, the adoption of conservation and management measures will not necessarily translate into effective or equitable outcomes.
Human activity has altered nearly all ecosystems on Earth, contributing to substantial biodiversity loss across taxonomic, genetic and functional dimensions, from the intraspecific to the ecosystem scale. Yet some components of biodiversity remain hidden or underappreciated, including behavioural diversity. Behaviour is often among the earliest whole-organism responses to environmental change, and diversity in behaviour can occur within individuals, among individuals, among populations and across communities and ecosystems. This variation may influence growth, survival, reproduction, ecological interactions and responses to anthropogenic pressures, although its effects on population stability and resilience are likely context-, scale- and component-dependent. In this review, we examine behavioural diversity in fishes, defined here as variation in behavioural traits across levels of biological organisation, from individuals to ecosystems. Our review has two complementary aims. First, we provide a conceptual overview of behavioural diversity, clarify how it differs from related constructs such as personality, plasticity, and behavioural syndromes, and summarise the evolutionary, ontogenetic, ecological, stochastic and anthropogenic processes that generate or erode it. Second, we evaluate why behavioural diversity matters for fish ecology, fisheries management, aquaculture, restoration and conservation. We conclude by identifying key research needs, including improved quantification, stronger empirical links between behavioural diversity and ecological outcomes, and the development of management approaches sensitive to behavioural diversity. More explicit consideration of behavioural diversity should improve our ability to predict fish behavioural diversity responses and to design conservation and management measures that account for variation rather than only average behavioural responses.
