Understanding animal movement is essential to elucidate how animals interact, survive, and thrive in a changing world. Recent technological advances in data collection and management have transformed our understanding of animal “movement ecology” (the integrated study of organismal movement), creating a big-data discipline that benefits from rapid, cost-effective generation of large amounts of data on movements of animals in the wild. These high-throughput wildlife tracking systems now allow more thorough investigation of variation among individuals and species across space and time, the nature of biological interactions, and behavioral responses to the environment. Movement ecology is rapidly expanding scientific frontiers through large interdisciplinary and collaborative frameworks, providing improved opportunities for conservation and insights into the movements of wild animals, and their causes and consequences.

Exposing fish to air following capture influences postrelease survival and behavior. Air exposure causes acute hypoxia and physical damage to the gill lamellae, resulting in physiological stress and physical damage that increases with air exposure duration. Air exposure duration is a relevant and easily quantified metric for both fishers and managers and can therefore provide a definitive benchmark for improving postrelease survival. Yet, fishers are rarely provided with specific recommendations other than simply to “minimize” air exposure. This is a subjective recommendation, potentially causing confusion and noncompliance. Here we discuss and summarize the literature regarding air exposure thresholds in both commercial and recreational fisheries, the factors influencing these thresholds, and identify knowledge gaps limiting our understanding of tolerance to air exposure in captured fish.

Envisioning the future of aquatic animal tracking: Technology, science, and application. BioScience, 67(1): 884-896 is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix098. Additional information:Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Electronic tags are significantly improving our understanding of aquatic animal behaviour and 47 are emerging as key sources of information for conservation and management practices. Future 48 aquatic integrative biology and ecology studies will increasingly rely on data from electronic 49 tagging. Continued advances in tracking hardware and software are needed to provide the 50 knowledge required by managers and policy makers to address the challenges posed by the 51 world's changing aquatic ecosystems. We foresee multi-platform tracking systems for 52 simultaneously monitoring position, activity, and physiology of animals and the environment 53 through which they are moving. Improved data collection will be accompanied by greater data 54 accessibility and analytical tools for processing data, enabled by new infrastructure and 55 cyberinfrastructure. To operationalize advances and facilitate integration into policy, there must 56 be parallel developments in the accessibility of education and training as well as solutions to key 57 governance and legal issues. 58 59

Considerable time and money are expended in the pursuit of catching fish with hooks (e.g., handlining, angling, longlining, trolling, drumlining) across the recreational, commercial and subsistence fishing sectors. The fish and other aquatic organisms (e.g., squid) that are captured are not a random sample of the population because external (e.g., turbidity) and underlying internal variables (e.g., morphology) contribute to variation in vulnerability to hooks. Vulnerability is the probability of capture for any given fish in a given location at a given time and mechanistically explains the population‐level catchability coefficient, which is a fundamental and usually time‐varying (i.e., dynamic) variable in fisheries science and stock assessment. The mechanistic drivers of individual vulnerability to capture are thus of interest to fishers by affecting catch rates, but are also of considerable importance to fisheries managers whenever hook‐and‐line‐generated data contribute to stock assessments. In this paper, individual vulnerability to hooks is conceptualized as a dynamic state, in which individual fish switch between vulnerable and invulnerable states as a function of three interdependent key processes: an individual fish's internal state, its encounter with the gear, and the characteristics of the encountered gear. We develop a new conceptual framework of “vulnerability,” summarize the major drivers of fish vulnerability, and conclude that fish vulnerability involves complex processes. To understand vulnerability, a shift to interdisciplinary research and the integration of ecophysiology, fish ecology, fisheries ecology and human movement ecology, facilitated by new technological developments, is required.

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.