Ethical considerations for field research on fishes

Abstract

Collection of data from animals for research purposes can negatively impact target or by-catch species if suitable animal ethics practices are not followed. This study aimed to assess the ethical requirements of peer-reviewed scientific journals that publish primary literature on fishes, and review the ethical considerations and animal care guidelines of national and international documents on the ethical treatment of animals for research, to provide an overview of the general ethical considerations for field research on fishes. A review of 250 peer-reviewed, ISI-rated journals publishing primary research on fishes revealed that nearly half (46%) had no mention of ethics, treatment of animals or ethical requirements for publication in their author guidelines or publication policies. However, 18% of the journals reviewed identify a specific set of ethical guidelines to be followed before publishing research involving animals. Ethical considerations for investigators undertaking field research on fishes, common to most animal care policies, legislation and guiding documents, include adhering to relevant legislation, minimising sample sizes, reducing or mitigating pain and distress, employing the most appropriate and least invasive techniques and accurately reporting methods and findings. This information will provide potential investigators with a useful starting point for designing and conducting ethical field research. Application of ethical best practices in field sampling studies will improve the welfare of study animals and the conservation of rare and endangered species.Conservation implications: This article provides a list of ethical considerations for designing and conducting field research on fishes. By reviewing sampling techniques and processes that are frequently used in field research on fishes and by highlighting the potential negative impacts of these sampling techniques, this article is intended to assist researchers in planning field research to minimise impacts on fish populations. It is envisaged that this review will be a useful resource for journal editorial committees intending to introduce ethical requirements for publication and for researchers, managers, conservation practitioners and research organisations when designing field studies on fishes, applying for ethical clearance and developing institutional ethical guidelines.

Dietary supplementation of probiotics and influence on feed efficiency, growth parameters and reproductive performance in female rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) broodstock

“…At the end of the experiment, three fish were randomly taken from each replicate and transferred into a small plastic tank containing 30 L water and anesthetized with clove powder extract at a dose of 200 mg/L (Ghaedi et al, ). Blood samples were collected from the caudal vein using a 5 ml heparinized (sodium heparin) syringe according to the approved ethical approach presented by Bennett et al (). First, 3 ml of blood was taken, 0.5 ml was used for haematological assays and the remaining part was centrifuged at 1,500 g for 10 min to obtain the blood plasma.…”

Effective monitoring of freshwater fish

“…The importance of ethical issues relating to biological fieldwork and the need to minimize harm to species and ecosystems has repeatedly been emphasized (e.g., Bennett et al, 2016;Costello et al, 2016;Farnsworth & Rosovsky, 1993); a detailed consideration of these matters is beyond the scope of this review. We note, however, that fish welfare issues have received much attention (e.g., Sloman, Bouyoucos, Brooks, & Sneddon, 2019), often centred around the question of whether fish are sentient and can experience pain and suffering (e.g., Arlinghaus, Cooke, Schwab, & Cowx, 2007;Braithwaite, 2010;Huntingford et al, 2006Huntingford et al, , 2007Rose et al, 2014)-a challenging question that has a number of implications in a scientific, ethical and legal context (Browman et al, 2019).…”

Ethical considerations in fish research

“…A survey by Bennett et al . (), which considered the top 250 peer‐reviewed ISI‐rated journals for fish research (defined by numbers of fish papers), discovered that while 54% made some mention of animal ethics in their author guidelines, only 18% required adherence to a specific guiding document for successful submission. Forty‐six per cent of journals surveyed made no mention of animal ethics requirements in their instructions to authors or publication policies.…”

“…However, many researchers would argue that anaesthesia itself is stressful, with subsequent physiological effects and so where handling is minimal and procedures are non-invasive or minimally invasive, the use of anaesthesia may be counterintuitive . For field studies there is the added complication that fishes will be released with some anaesthetic agents requiring a withdrawal period before fishes can be released into the wild (Bennett et al, 2016;Wargo Rub et al, 2014) if, for example, the fish may be caught for subsequent human consumption (Ross & Ross, 2008). Anaesthesia may also alter physiology and behaviour such that the likelihood of post-release predation increases .…”

“…Where possible, many researchers seek to release wild-caught fishes back to their native habitat when they are no longer required for scientific research. Fishes should obviously be in good health when they are released and should be displaying normal behaviour and physiology (Bennett et al, 2016). Animals released in poor physiological condition or exhibiting unusual behaviours are likely to be more vulnerable to predation.…”