Recreational fishing is a popular activity in aquatic ecosystems around the globe using a variety of gears including rod and line and to a lesser extent handlines, spears, bow and arrow, traps and nets. Similar to the propensity to engage in voluntary catch‐and‐release, the propensity to harvest fishes strongly varies among cultures, locations, species and fisheries. There is a misconception that because recreational fishing happens during non‐work (i.e. leisure) time, the nutritional motivation is negligible; therefore, the role of recreational fishing in supporting nutrition (and thus food security) at regional, national or global scales is underappreciated. We consider the factors that influence whether fish will be harvested or released by examining the motives that underlie recreational fishing. Next, we provide an overview of the magnitude and role of recreational fishing harvest in supporting nutrition using regional case‐studies. Then, we address issues such as contaminants and parasites that constrain the ability of fish harvested by recreational fishers to be consumed. Although recreational fishing is foremost a leisure activity, the harvest of fish for personal consumption by recreational fishers has contributed and will continue to contribute to human nutrition by providing an accessible, affordable and generally highly sustainable food source, notwithstanding concerns about food safety and possibly overfishing. Attempts to better quantify the role of fish harvested by recreational fishers and the relative contribution to overall food security and personal nutrition will provide resource managers and policymakers the information needed to guide management activities and policy development.

Abstract:War is an ever-present force that has the potential to alter the biosphere. Here we review the potential consequences of modern war and military activities on ecosystem structure and function. We focus on the effects of direct conflict, nuclear weapons, military training, and military produced contaminants. Overall, the aforementioned activities were found to have overwhelmingly negative effects on ecosystem structure and function. Dramatic habitat alteration, environmental pollution, and disturbance contributed to population declines and biodiversity losses arising from both acute and chronic effects in both terrestrial and aquatic systems. In some instances, even in the face of massive alterations to ecosystem structure, recovery was possible. Interestingly, military activity was beneficial under specific conditions, such as when an exclusion zone was generated that generally resulted in population increases and (or) population recovery; an observation noted in both terrestrial and aquatic systems. Additionally, military technological advances (e.g., GPS technology, drone technology, biotelemetry) have provided conservation scientists with novel tools for research. Because of the challenges associated with conducting research in areas with military activities (e.g., restricted access, hazardous conditions), information pertaining to military impacts on the environment are relatively scarce and are often studied years after military activities have ceased and with no knowledge of baseline conditions. Additional research would help to elucidate the environmental consequences (positive and negative) and thus reveal opportunities for mitigating negative effects while informing the development of optimal strategies for rehabilitation and recovery.Key words: war, biodiversity, ecosystem structure, conflict, military activities, environment, conservation biology.Résumé : La guerre est une force omniprésente ayant le potentiel d'altérer l'atmosphère. Les auteurs passent en revue les conséquences potentielles des activités guerrières et militaires modernes sur la structure et le fonctionnement des écosystèmes. On met l'accent sur les effets directs et indirects des conflits, des armes nucléaires, des entrainements militaires et des contaminants des produits militaires. Dans l'ensemble, on constate que les activités préalablement mentionnées ont des effets négatifs écrasants sur la structure et le fonctionnement des écosystèmes. Avec des altérations dramatiques des habitats, la pollution et les perturbations environnementales contribuent au déclin des populations et aux pertes de biodiversité provenant des effets aigus et chroniques sur les systèmes terrestres aussi bien qu'aquatiques. Tout de même dans certains cas, en présence d'altérations massives de la structure des écosystèmes, la récupération s'est avérée possible. Il est intéressant de noter qu'une activité militaire fut bénéfique sous des conditions spécifiques telles que la création d'une zone d'exclusion, en générant des augmentations générales des p...

A prerequisite to studying the physiological status of wild animals is the ability to obtain blood samples that reflect the condition prior to capture or handling. Based on research in avian taxa, it is recommended that such samples be obtained within 3 min of capture; however, this guideline has not been validated in wild teleosts. The present study addresses the time course of physiological changes in a number of blood metrics across six species of freshwater fish. Fishes were caught using a standardized angling protocol and held in a water-filled trough prior to the collection of a blood sample, via caudal phlebotomy, between 0.5 and 11 min after capture. Changes in whole-blood glucose and lactate concentrations, hematocrit, and plasma cortisol concentrations were assessed. Change-point analyses indicated that blood lactate concentrations and hematocrit did not deviate from baseline values until ∼2–5 min of handling for all species, whereas blood glucose concentrations generally did not deviate significantly from baseline over the 11 min test period. In all species, plasma cortisol concentrations began to increase above baseline between ∼4 and 8 min after capture. Thus, to ensure that blood samples are representative of baseline conditions across multiple metrics, we recommend that sampling be limited to less than 2 min in teleost fishes.

No abstract

Conservation practitioners face complex challenges due to resource limitations, biological and socioeconomic trade-offs, involvement of diverse interest groups, and data deficiencies. To help address these challenges, there are a growing number of frameworks for systematic decision making. Three prominent frameworks are structured decision making, systematic conservation prioritization, and systematic reviews. These frameworks have numerous conceptual linkages, and offer rigorous and transparent solutions to conservation problems. However, they differ in their assumptions and applicability. Here, we provide guidance on how to choose among these frameworks for solving conservation problems, and how to identify less rigorous techniques when time or data availability limit options. Each framework emphasizes the need for proper problem consideration and formulation, and includes steps for monitoring and evaluation. We recommend clear and documented problem formulation, adopting structured decision-making processes, and archiving results in a global database to support conservation professionals in making evidencebased decisions in the future.