Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 711–735 | Cite as

Assessing evolutionary consequences of size-selective recreational fishing on multiple life-history traits, with an application to northern pike (Esox lucius)

  • Shuichi Matsumura
  • Robert Arlinghaus
  • Ulf Dieckmann
Original Paper

Abstract

Despite mounting recognition of the importance of fishing-induced evolution, methods for quantifying selection pressures on multiple adaptive traits affected by size-selective harvesting are still scarce. We study selection differentials on three life-history traits—reproductive investment, size at maturation, and growth capacity—under size-selective exploitation of northern pike (Esox lucius L.) with recreational-fishing gear. An age-structured population model is presented that accounts for the eco-evolutionary feedback arising from density-dependent and frequency-dependent selection. By introducing minimum-length limits, maximum-length limits, and combinations of such limits (resulting in harvestable-slot length limits) into the model, we examine the potential of simple management tools for mitigating selection pressures induced by recreational fishing. With regard to annual reproductive investment, we find that size-selective fishing mortality exerts relatively small positive selection differentials. By contrast, selection differentials on size at maturation are large and consistently negative. Selection differentials on growth capacity are often large and positive, but become negative when a certain range of minimum-length limits are applied. In general, the strength of selection is reduced by implementing more stringent management policies, but each life-history trait responds differently to the introduction of specific harvest regulations. Based on a simple genetic inheritance model, we examine mid- and long-term evolutionary changes of the three life-history traits and their impacts on the size spectrum and yield of pike. Fishing-induced evolution often reduces sizes and yields, but details depend on a variety of factors such as the specific regulation in place. We find no regulation that is successful in reducing to zero all selection pressures on life-history traits induced by recreational fishing. Accordingly, we must expect that inducing some degree of evolution through recreational fishing is inevitable.

Keywords

Angling Evolutionarily enlightened fisheries management Fisheries-induced evolution Growth rate Reproductive investment Size at maturation 

References

  1. Andersen KH, Brander K (2009) Expected rate of fisheries-induced evolution is slow. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 106:11657–11660PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arlinghaus R, Mehner T, Cowx IG (2002) Reconciling traditional inland fisheries management and sustainability in industrialized countries, with emphasis on Europe. Fish Fish 3:261–316Google Scholar
  3. Arlinghaus R, Klefoth T, Kobler A, Cooke SJ (2008) Size-selectivity, capture efficiency, injury, handling time and determinants of initial hooking mortality of angled northern pike (Esox lucius L.): the influence of bait type and size. N Am J Fish Manage 28:123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arlinghaus R, Matsumura S, Dieckmann U (2009) Quantifying selection differentials caused by recreational fishing: development of modeling framework and application to reproductive investment in pike (Esox lucius). Evol Appl 2:335–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arlinghaus R, Matsumura S, Dieckmann U (2010) The conservation and fishery benefits of protecting large fish from exploitation: the example of pike (Esox lucius L.) exploited by recreational fisheries. Biol Conserv 143:1444–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baskett ML, Levin SA, Gaines SD, Dushoff J (2005) Marine reserve design and the evolution of size at maturation in harvested fish. Ecol Appl 15:882–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlson SM, Edeline E, Vøllestad LA, Haugen TO, Winfield IJ, Fletcher JM, Ben James J, Stenseth NC (2007) Four decades of opposing natural and human-induced artificial selection acting on Windermere pike (Esox lucius). Ecol Lett 10:512–521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caswell H (2001) Matrix population models. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  9. Conover DO, Munch SB (2002) Sustaining fisheries yields over evolutionary time scales. Science 297:94–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Craig JF, Kipling C (1983) Reproduction effort versus the environment; case histories of Windermere perch, Perca fluviatilis L., and pike, Esox lucius L. J Fish Biol 22:713–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Darimont CT, Carlsonc SM, Kinnisond MT, Paquete PC, Reimchena TE, Wilmersbet CC (2009) Human predators outpace other agents of trait change in the wild. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 106:952–954PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diana JS (1983) Growth, maturation, and production of northern pike in three Michigan lakes. Trans Am Fish Soc 112:38–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dieckmann U, Heino M (2007) Probabilistic maturation reaction norms: their history, strengths, and limitations. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 335:253–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dieckmann U, Heino M, Rijnsdorp AD (2009) The dawn of Darwinian fishery management. ICES Insight 46:34–43Google Scholar
  15. Dunlop ES, Enberg K, Jørgensen C, Heino M (2009a) Toward Darwinian fisheries management. Evol Appl 2:245–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunlop ES, Heino M, Dieckmann U (2009b) Eco-genetic modeling of contemporary life-history evolution. Ecol Appl 19:1815–1834PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dunlop ES, Baskett ML, Heino M, Dieckmann U (2009c) Propensity of marine reserves to reduce the evolutionary effects of fishing in a migratory species. Evol Appl 2:371–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Edeline E, Carlson SM, Stige LC, Winfield IJ, Fletcher JM, Ben James J, Haugen TO, Vøllestad LA, Stenseth NC (2007) Trait changes in a harvested population are driven by a dynamic tug-of-war between natural and harvest selection. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 104:15799–15804PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Edeline E, Carlson SM, Ben Ari T, Vøllestad LA, Winfield IJ, Fletcher JM, Ben James J, Stenseth NC (2008) Antagonistic selection from predators and pathogens alters food-web structure. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 105:19793–19796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Edeline E, Le Rouzic A, Winfield IJ, Fletcher JM, Ben James J, Stenseth NC, Vollestad LA (2009) Harvest-induced disruptive selection increases variance in fitness-related traits. Proc R Soc B 276:4163–4171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Enberg K, Jørgensen C, Dunlop ES, Heino M, Dieckmann U (2009) Implications of fisheries-induced evolution for stock rebuilding and recovery. Evol Appl 2:394–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ernande B, Dieckmann U, Heino M (2004) Adaptive changes in harvested populations: plasticity and evolution of age and size at maturation. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:415–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edn. Longman Limited, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  24. Franklin DR, Smith LL Jr (1963) Early life history of the northern pike, Esox lucius L., with special reference to the factors influencing the numerical strength of year classes. Trans Am Fish Soc 92:91–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grey DR (1993) Evolutionarily stable optimal harvest strategies. In: Stokes TK, McGlade JM, Law R (eds) The exploitation of evolving resources. Springer, Berlin., pp 176–186Google Scholar
  26. Haugen TO, Winfield IJ, Vøllestad LA, Fletcher JM, James JB, Stenseth NC (2007) Density dependence and density independence in the demography and dispersal of pike over four decades. Ecol Monogr 77:483–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heino M (1998) Management of evolving fish stocks. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55:1971–1982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heino M, Dieckmann U (2008) Detecting fisheries-induced life-history evolution: an overview of the reaction norm approach. Bull Mar Sci 83:69–93Google Scholar
  29. Heino M, Godø OR (2002) Fisheries-induced selection pressures in the context of sustainable fisheries. Bull Mar Sci 70:639–656Google Scholar
  30. Hereford J, Hansen TF, Houle D (2004) Comparing strengths of directional selection: how strong is strong? Evolution 58:2133–2143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hilborn R, Minte-Vera CV (2008) Fisheries-induced changes in growth rates in marine fisheries: are they significant? Bull Mar Sci 83:95–105Google Scholar
  32. Hutchings JA, Fraser DJ (2007) The nature of fisheries- and farming-induced evolution. Mol Ecol 17:295–313Google Scholar
  33. Jørgensen C, Enberg K, Dunlop ES, Arlinghaus R, Boukal DS, Brander K, Ernande B, Gårdmark A, Johnston F, Matsumura S, Pardoe H, Raab K, Silva A, Vainikka A, Dieckmann U, Heino M, Rijnsdorp AD (2007) Managing evolving fish stocks. Science 318:1247–1248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jørgensen C, Ernande B, Fiksen Ø (2009) Size-selective fishing gear and life history evolution in the Northeast Arctic cod. Evol Appl 2:356–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kinnison MT, Palkovacs EP, Darimont CT, Carlson SM, Paquet PC, Wilmers CC (2009) Some cautionary notes on fisheries evolutionary impact assessments. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 106:E115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kipling C (1983a) Changes in the growth of pike (Esox lucius) in Windermere. J Anim Ecol 52:647–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kipling C (1983b) Changes in the population of pike (Esox lucius) in Windermere from 1944 to 1981. J Anim Ecol 52:989–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kipling C, Frost WE (1970) A study of the mortality, population numbers, year class strength, production and food consumption of pike, Esox lucius L., in Windermere from 1944 to 1962. J Anim Ecol 39:115–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kuparinen A, Merilä J (2007) Detecting and managing fisheries-induced evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 22:652–659PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Law R (2007) Fisheries-induced evolution: present status and future directions. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 335:271–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Law R, Grey DR (1989) Evolution of yields from populations with age-specific cropping. Evol Ecol 3:343–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lester NP, Shuter BJ, Abrams PA (2004) Interpreting the von Bertalanffy model of somatic growth in fishes: the cost of reproduction. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:1625–1631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lewin W-C, Arlinghaus R, Mehner T (2006) Documented and potential biological impacts of recreational fishing: insights for management and conservation. Rev Fish Sci 14:305–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lorenzen K, Enberg K (2002) Density-dependent growth as a key mechanism in the regulation of fish populations: evidence from among-population comparisons. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:49–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mace PM (1994) Relationships between common biological reference points used as thresholds and targets of fisheries management strategies. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 51:110–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Minns CK, Randall RG, Moore JE, Cairns VW (1996) A model simulating the impact of habitat supply limits on northern pike, Esox lucius, in Hamilton Harbour, Lake Ontario. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53(Suppl. 1):20–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Munoeke MI, Childress WM (1994) Hooking mortality: a review for recreational fisheries. Rev Fish Sci 2:123–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nusslé S, Bornand CN, Wedekind C (2008) Fishery-induced selection on an Alpine whitefish: quantifying genetic and environmental effects on individual growth rate. Evol Appl 1:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Okamoto KW, Whitlock R, Magnan P, Dieckmann U (2009) Mitigating fisheries-induced evolution in lacustrine brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis) in southern Quebec, Canada. Evol Appl 2:415–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Paukert CP, Klammer JA, Pierce RB, Simonson TD (2001) An overview of northern pike regulations in North America. Fisheries 26(6):6–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Philipp DP, Cooke SJ, Claussen JE, Koppelman JB, Suski CD, Burkett DP (2009) Selection for vulnerability to angling in largemouth bass. Trans Am Fish Soc 138:189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Phillips PC, Arnold SJ (1989) Visualizing multivariate selection. Evolution 43:1209–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pierce RB, Tomcko CM, Schupp DH (1995) Exploitation of northern pike in seven small North-Central Minnesota lakes. N Am J Fish Manage 15:601–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Post JR, Mushens C, Paul A, Sullivan M (2003) Assessment of alternative harvest regulations for sustaining recreational fisheries: model development and application to bull trout. N Am J Fish Manage 23:22–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Quince C, Abrams PA, Shuter BJ, Lester NP (2008) Biphasic growth in fish I: theoretical foundations. J Theor Biol 254:197–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Raat AJP (1988) Synopsis of biological data on the northern pike Esox lucius Linnaeus, 1758. FAO Fish. Synop. 30, Rev. 2. FAO, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  57. Redpath TD, Cooke SJ, Arlinghaus R, Wahl DH, Philipp DP (2009) Life-history traits and energetic status in relation to vulnerability to angling in an experimentally selected teleost fish. Evol Appl 2:312–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ricker WE (1981) Changes in the average size and average age of Pacific Salmon. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 38:1636–1656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Saura M, Morán P, Brotherstone S, Caballero A, Álvarez J, Villanueva B (2010) Predictions of response to selection caused by angling in a wild population of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Freshwat Biol 55:923–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sharpe DMT, Hendry AP (2009) Life history change in commercially exploited fish stocks: an analysis of trends across studies. Evol Appl 2:260–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stamps JA (2007) Growth-mortality tradeoffs and ‘personality traits’ in animals. Ecol Lett 10:355–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Swain DP, Sinclair AF, Hanson MF (2007) Evolutionary response to size-selective mortality in an exploited fish population. Proc R Soc B 274:1015–1022PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thériault V, Dunlop ES, Dieckmann U, Bernatchez L, Dodson JJ (2008) The impact of fishing-induced mortality on the evolution of alternative life-history tactics in brook charr. Evol Appl 1:409–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thygesen UH, Farnsworth KD, Andersen KH, Beyer JE (2005) How optimal life history changes with the community size-spectrum. Proc R Soc B 272:1323–1331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Uusi-Heikkilä S, Wolter C, Klefoth T, Arlinghaus R (2008) A behavioral perspective of fishing-induced evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 23:419–421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Walters CJ, Martell SJD (2004) Fisheries ecology and management. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  67. Williams EH, Shertzer KW (2005) Effects of fishing on growth traits: a simulation analysis. Fish Bull 103:392–403Google Scholar
  68. Willis DW (1989) Proposed standard length-weight equation for northern pike. N Am J Fish Manage 9:203–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shuichi Matsumura
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Robert Arlinghaus
    • 2
    • 4
  • Ulf Dieckmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Evolution and Ecology ProgramInternational Institute for Applied Systems AnalysisLaxenburgAustria
  2. 2.Department of Biology and Ecology of FishesLeibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland FisheriesBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Faculty of Applied Biological SciencesGifu UniversityGifuJapan
  4. 4.Inland Fisheries Management Laboratory, Department for Crop and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture and HorticultureHumboldt-University of BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations