journal of fisheries research

Fisheries Research

Subject Area and Category

• Aquatic Science

Elsevier B.V.

Publication type

1981, 1983-2024

Information

How to publish in this journal

The set of journals have been ranked according to their SJR and divided into four equal groups, four quartiles. Q1 (green) comprises the quarter of the journals with the highest values, Q2 (yellow) the second highest values, Q3 (orange) the third highest values and Q4 (red) the lowest values.

The SJR is a size-independent prestige indicator that ranks journals by their 'average prestige per article'. It is based on the idea that 'all citations are not created equal'. SJR is a measure of scientific influence of journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where such citations come from It measures the scientific influence of the average article in a journal, it expresses how central to the global scientific discussion an average article of the journal is.

Evolution of the number of published documents. All types of documents are considered, including citable and non citable documents.

This indicator counts the number of citations received by documents from a journal and divides them by the total number of documents published in that journal. The chart shows the evolution of the average number of times documents published in a journal in the past two, three and four years have been cited in the current year. The two years line is equivalent to journal impact factor ™ (Thomson Reuters) metric.

Evolution of the total number of citations and journal's self-citations received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. Journal Self-citation is defined as the number of citation from a journal citing article to articles published by the same journal.

Evolution of the number of total citation per document and external citation per document (i.e. journal self-citations removed) received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. External citations are calculated by subtracting the number of self-citations from the total number of citations received by the journal’s documents.

International Collaboration accounts for the articles that have been produced by researchers from several countries. The chart shows the ratio of a journal's documents signed by researchers from more than one country; that is including more than one country address.

Not every article in a journal is considered primary research and therefore "citable", this chart shows the ratio of a journal's articles including substantial research (research articles, conference papers and reviews) in three year windows vs. those documents other than research articles, reviews and conference papers.

Ratio of a journal's items, grouped in three years windows, that have been cited at least once vs. those not cited during the following year.

Follow us on @ScimagoJR Scimago Lab , Copyright 2007-2024. Data Source: Scopus®

Cookie settings

Cookie Policy

Legal Notice

Privacy Policy

Advertisement

Goals, challenges, and next steps in transdisciplinary fisheries research: perspectives and experiences from early-career researchers

• Point-of-View
• Published: 05 August 2022
• Volume 33 , pages 349–374, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Elizabeth A. Nyboer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3004-009X 1 ,
• Andrea J. Reid 2 ,
• Amanda L. Jeanson 1 ,
• Rachel Kelly 3 , 4 ,
• Mary Mackay 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ,
• Jenny House 7 ,
• Sarah M. Arnold 8 ,
• Paul W. Simonin 9 ,
• Mary Grace C. Sedanza 10 , 11 ,
• Emma D. Rice 12 ,
• T. E. Angela L. Quiros 13 ,
• Andrea Pierucci 14 ,
• Kelly Ortega-Cisneros 15 ,
• Julia N. Nakamura 16 ,
• Valentina Melli 17 ,
• Stella Mbabazi 18 ,
• Mariana S. L. Martins 19 ,
• Anne Brigette B. Ledesma 20 ,
• Clara Obregón 21 , 22 ,
• Chepkemboi K. Labatt 23 , 24 ,
• Andrew N. Kadykalo 1 ,
• Michael Heldsinger 25 , 26 ,
• Madeline E. Green 5 , 6 ,
• Jessica L. Fuller 27 ,
• Milagros Franco-Meléndez 28 , 29 ,
• Matthew J. Burnett 30 ,
• Jessica A. Bolin 31 ,
• Solange Andrade-Vera 32 &
• Steven J. Cooke 1  

6737 Accesses

9 Citations

21 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Fisheries are highly complex social-ecological systems that often face ‘wicked’ problems from unsustainable resource management to climate change. Addressing these challenges requires transdisciplinary approaches that integrate perspectives across scientific disciplines and knowledge systems. Despite widespread calls for transdisciplinary fisheries research (TFR), there are still limitations in personal and institutional capacity to conduct and support this work to the highest potential. The viewpoints of early career researchers (ECRs) in this field can illuminate challenges and promote systemic change within fisheries research. This paper presents the perspectives of ECRs from across the globe, gathered through a virtual workshop held during the 2021 World Fisheries Congress, on goals, challenges, and future potential for TFR. Big picture goals for TFR were guided by principles of co-production and included (i) integrating transdisciplinary thinking at all stages of the research process, (ii) ensuring that research is inclusive and equitable, (iii) co-creating knowledge that is credible, relevant, actionable, and impactful, and (iv) consistently communicating with partners. Institutional inertia, lack of recognition of the extra time and labour required for TFR, and lack of skill development opportunities were identified as three key barriers in conducting TFR. Several critical actions were identified to help ECRs, established researchers, and institutions reach these goals. We encourage ECRs to form peer-mentorship networks to guide each other along the way. We suggest that established researchers ensure consistent mentorship while also giving space to ECR voices. Actions for institutions include retooling education programs, developing and implementing new metrics of impact, and critically examining individualism and privilege in academia. We suggest that the opportunities and actions identified here, if widely embraced now, can enable research that addresses complex challenges facing fishery systems contributing to a healthier future for fish and humans alike.

Similar content being viewed by others

Research design: the methodology for interdisciplinary research framework.

Hilde Tobi & Jarl K. Kampen

Leverage points for sustainability transformation

David J. Abson, Joern Fischer, … Daniel J. Lang

Achieving Sustainable Development Goals Through Collaborative Innovation: Evidence from Four European Initiatives

Laura Mariani, Benedetta Trivellato, … Elisabetta Marafioti

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Fisheries science as a research discipline has made important intellectual contributions to some of the world's most complex environmental and societal challenges. Western fisheries science was initially developed to support the management of economically valuable commercial fisheries in the global north, focusing primarily on biological factors that regulate fishery productivity, or on stock assessment models to establish maximum sustainable yield and high economic output (Beverton and Holt 1957 ; Halliday and Pinhorn 1996 ; Halliday and Fanning 2006 ). Fisheries research and management now span diverse ecosystems around the globe in the service of various fisheries sectors (e.g., small-scale, ceremonial, recreational).

More recently, fisheries have been characterized as social-ecological systems (Ommer and Perry 2011 ), which address the complex interactions and multi-way feedbacks that exist among diverse actors, target species, and ecosystems (Schlüter et al. 2012 ). The study and management of fisheries are thus characterized by high levels of uncertainty. Widespread and rapid changes in the world’s aquatic ecosystems alter social-ecological relationships and can have profound effects on the livelihoods and lifeways of local communities (Andrews et al. 2020 ). The challenges facing fisheries as an industry, livelihood, and research discipline span disparate yet interconnected topics including governance, economics, food security, poverty alleviation, biodiversity conservation, climate adaptation, and social justice (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2019 ). These complex challenges have been recognized in the fisheries literature as ‘wicked problems’ (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009 ; Turgeon et al. 2018 ); i.e., problems characterized as multi-dimensional, difficult to define, evolving, having competing and intrinsically diverse interests and conflict types, and without a single or immediate solution (Rittel and Webber 1974 ).

It is widely accepted in current fisheries research that no single discipline, source of knowledge, sphere of experience, or area of expertise can independently address the ‘wicked problems’ faced by fisheries (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009 ; Haapasaari et al. 2012 ; Glavovic et al. 2015 ). For example, finding equitable and sustainable solutions for communities coping with large-scale environmental change (e.g., climate change) may require integration of community-based knowledge (e.g., local knowledge of ecosystem function), and data from social sciences (e.g.,., decision making processes, social dynamics of adaptation), economics (e.g., impact on value chains), political science (e.g., policy creation, governance theory), and ecology (e.g., responses of the biological community to environmental stress). Indeed, such questions necessitate a broad integration of perspectives across academic disciplines and knowledge systems. In some cases, local ecological knowledge (e.g., experiences, perceptions, stories, anecdotal information) has improved governance of fisheries resources by providing otherwise elusive insights that add to our collective understanding of the social-ecological dynamics of fishery systems (examples in Johannes et al., 2000 ; Azzurro 2011; Eckert et al., 2018). Although some fisheries challenges may have straightforward solutions, the complexity of many of these  problems  demand that fisheries research ‘transcend science’ by drawing on diverse knowledges. In this way, the research process and outcomes can better attend to the needs and values of diverse rights holders, local communities, practitioners, resource managers, and decision-makers (Cvitanovic et al. 2015 ; Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2019 ; Reid et al. 2020 ; Barnes et al. 2021 ; Kadykalo et al. 2021a ). The uptake and application of transdisciplinary methodologies are increasingly recognized as effective at finding solutions to complex and dynamic problems facing fisheries and developing equitable and legitimate management approaches (Turgeon et al. 2018 ). Transdisciplinarity extends beyond multi- and interdisciplinary methodologies that incorporate collaborative elements and integrate data across academic disciplines (Klein 1990 ) to support cooperative approaches and partnerships which enable knowledge exchange across science-policy-practice divides (Turgeon et al. 2018 ; Bennett 2019 ; Kelly et al. 2019 ; Barnes et al. 2021 ).

Transdisciplinary approaches have spurred the development of new frameworks for managing and studying fisheries, many of which have roots or direct parallels with long-standing approaches to looking after fisheries (e.g., Indigenous fisheries that commonly manage whole systems and are inherently adaptive; Berkes 2018 ). Two of these frameworks, i.e., ecosystem-based fishery management (Macher et al. 2021 ) and adaptive co-management (Armitage et al. 2010 ; Stöhr et al. 2014 ), emphasize the need for integrative approaches that move beyond just biological considerations and consider the social, ecological, economic, and institutional dimensions of fisheries (Turgeon et al. 2018 ). Within these frameworks, the roles of scientists have shifted. Researchers must become fluent in diverse disciplinary ‘languages’ (Andrews et al. 2020 ), learn complex communication skills (Macher et al. 2021 ), navigate when their voices are critical and when they are not as useful (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2019 ), and learn how to respectfully combine and uphold the validity of multiple knowledge types (Steelman et al. 2019 ; Reid et al. 2020 ; Barnes et al. 2021 ). In addition, researchers are taking on new responsibilities at the science-policy-practice interface (Cvitanovic et al. 2015 ; Fabian et al. 2019 ; Kadykalo et al. 2021b ) and must learn how to frame their findings in a way that is relevant to decision-makers. Engaging in transdisciplinary fisheries research (TFR) requires substantial investments in time and training to navigate the co-production of knowledge with diverse partners who may have different management goals, accessibility to information, and communication styles or needs (Mauser et al. 2013 ; Evans and Cvitanovic 2018 ; Kelly et al. 2019 ; Andrews et al. 2020 ).

These demands can be intense, particularly for early career researchers (ECRs) (Chapman et al. 2015 ; Turgeon et al. 2018 ; Kelly et al. 2019 ). Despite widespread calls for transdisciplinary research, there are still barriers in personal, financial, technical, and institutional capacity to carry out and support TFR. Proper training can be difficult to offer and access, and opportunities to discuss common goals and strategize best practices are limited. To provide a forum for such critical dialogue, we held a global collaborative workshop for ECRs who work or aim to work in TFR. The objective of the workshop was to gather the perspectives of ECRs to identify big picture goals for the field, characterize and understand the main barriers for conducting TFR, and identify actions for researchers and institutions that can enable TFR. The goal of this paper is to share reflections from that workshop to spark dialogue and prospective thinking on the goals, challenges, and future potential for this expanding field.

Our workshop took place on September 21, 2021, as part of the World Fisheries Congress (WFC) in Adelaide, Australia (held virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic). We assembled a diverse international team of fisheries researchers in early career stages who use or aspire to use transdisciplinary methodologies in their work. We define ‘early career’ to include graduate students in Master’s or PhD programs, as well as professionals in the first five years following their highest degree.

After registering for the WFC, participants could sign up for the workshop online on a first-come first-served basis (with a limit of 20 spots in the initial registry) if they qualified as an ECR and identified the ongoing or potential for transdisciplinary research in their field. Other participants were recruited via targeted invitation to offer spots to ECRs who missed the online sign-up window, and to fill gaps in global representation (although still drawn from within the WFC pool). Targeted recruitment (led by EAN) involved reading titles and abstracts of registered WFC participants and emailing invitations to individuals who fit the target demographic. In total there were 29 participants: four organizers (EAN, AJR, ALJ, SJC), 16 sign-ups, and nine recruits. Among the recruits were two individuals (RK, MM) who were asked to co-lead the workshop based on their expertise in the field. All participants who contributed to the activities before, during and after the workshop are co-authors on this manuscript, with representation from 26 countries across six continents (Fig.  1 a, Appendix A1). Most participants were in the academic system at the graduate student or postdoctoral level, although some participants hailed from the consulting, practitioner, government, and non-governmental (NGO) sectors (Fig.  1 b). The types of freshwater and marine fisheries represented were from the commercial, small-scale, Indigenous, subsistence, recreational, and aquaculture sectors (Fig.  1 c) as defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO 2012).

A Countries of residence and/or research location of the author team. Countries shaded blue (darker tones) are where members of the author team reside and/or carry out research. Countries shaded orange (lighter tones) are where members of the author team conduct research but do not reside. See Appendix A1 for full list. B Career stages and sectors of participants. C Types of fisheries represented by participants in the workshop (participants could choose more than one)

The organizers and workshop facilitators aimed to foster inclusivity, diversity, and equitability as much as possible. To reduce language barriers, we used online translation tools (e.g., Google Translate ) to translate all written documents and communications into requested languages and employed closed captioning during the Zoom session. Additionally, we provided live technical support during the Zoom meeting, and saved all video recordings, chat logs, and transcripts to share with participants after the meeting. Multiple models of participation outside of the live workshops were offered to participants to accommodate individuals with poor internet connections or time zone conflicts. For example, we used online forms, interactive ‘Mural’ boards ( https://www.mural.co/ ), and opportunities for post-workshop reflections (via e-mail).

The exercise of building the knowledge base for this article proceeded in three stages: (i) a pre-workshop individual brainstorming session, (ii) a three-hour live Zoom ( https://zoom.us/ ) event (i.e., the workshop), and (iii) post workshop reflections and writing. For the brainstorming session, each participant was asked to complete an online survey via Google Forms in the week prior to the workshop to provide details about research interests and thoughts on two key questions. These questions were:

Based on your experience as an ECR, what do you believe are key goals for TFR in the future? Think about intellectual challenges and important areas of future research to guide the field and to produce knowledge that is important for sustainable fishery systems.

What are some challenges faced by ECRs working in transdisciplinary settings? How can these barriers be overcome? For each challenge, please identify a possible solution

The brainstorming session provided time to contemplate discussion points and ensured that all voices were heard regardless of whether people could not attend the workshop or preferred to be less vocal in the workshop setting. Responses were submitted up to one day before the workshop. Responses were then read by two organizers (ALJ, EAN) and rapidly collated and categorized into four key themes for each discussion question before the workshop (Appendix A2).

For the workshop, we established an ethical and respectful community of practice by opening with a land acknowledgement (led by AJR) that invited participants to reflect on the place they were joining from, recognizing the unique and enduring relationship that exists between Indigenous Peoples and their traditional land and territories. We felt such acknowledgements were important steps to recognizing the need to reduce the harms of colonialism—especially in transdisciplinary fisheries research which is partially concerned with reconciling relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples, and nature. Participants were then given time to introduce themselves and their personal research backgrounds to the group. One hour was allotted per question to consider and discuss thoughts on each topic. First, a summary of the online responses (led by ALJ) was presented, and then participants were assigned to three breakout groups. Workshop leaders guided the discussion and kept notes, and participants could provide input orally or by using interactive Mural boards to write down key points. A short plenary followed each breakout period to share highlights. The workshop closed with reflective words from a later career mentor and established TFR colleague (SJC).

After the workshop, a systematic analysis was conducted on all outputs. The Mural boards from each breakout group were first analyzed separately by categorizing ‘sticky notes’ into themes within each board (Appendix A3). Perspectives from the three Mural boards were then combined and grouped into larger categories including: goals , barriers, considerations for researchers , and actions for ECRs, established researchers, and institutions . To ensure all participants’ points and concerns were captured accurately, the Zoom video recordings were transcribed in full. A codebook was developed through inductive processes and refined over two rounds of coding (conducted by EAN, Appendix A4). The first round of coding was used to categorize and summarize the data into broad themes, and the second round was used to focus on specific sub-themes and categories that emerged from the Mural board analysis. Subsequently, the responses from the Google Form were cross-checked with themes and categories that emerged from the workshop.

The ECRs in the workshop (i.e., the authors, herein referred to as ‘we’) provide a synthesis of perspectives emerging from the Google Form , Zoom workshop, and post-workshop reflections. We outline big-picture goals for TFR as a field and match each goal with high-level considerations for researchers conducting TFR. Next we discuss key barriers to conducting TFR and identify several specific actions for ECRs, established researchers, and institutions that can enable this type of work (Fig.  2 ). We include three boxes with examples of extant strategies or new models of action for how changes to current norms can be made; boxes are based on participants’ experiences.

Diagram outlining key points in each of the part of the manuscript: goals and considerations, barriers, and actions that can enable TFR

Given the broad range of perspectives and contexts represented in our workshop, goals, considerations, barriers, and actions that we present are unsurprisingly generic. We acknowledge that variations in political situation, governance approach, industry standard, and economic capacity among fisheries, regions, countries, continents, and the global north vs. global south mean that translating our suggestions into achievable actions will look different across geographies and contexts. Barriers and challenges will be substantially higher in regions with less support and funding for TFR (i.e., much of the global south). We further acknowledge that despite our collaborative approach, the group of people whose views are presented here does not entirely represent the perspectives and experiences of all global ECRs. Our team was drawn from individuals able to attend an online international congress, and thus excludes those without access or resources to attend. Despite these limitations, we observed parallel experiences and congruity of responses among participants. This manuscript was developed collaboratively with all authors (i.e., workshop participants); the views presented below are thus broadly representative of the experiences of the ECRs who attended this workshop, and likely have relevance in the broader context of TFR.

Workshop outcomes

A first critical step to any fisheries research project will be to determine whether transdisciplinary approaches are indeed necessary to answer the question at hand. We suggest researchers should use a transdisciplinary approach any time there are diverse and competing ways of understanding the problem (cause, effect, and solution), and when outcomes carry high stakes for multiple actors (Pohl and Hadorn, 2007 ). The following goals, considerations, barriers, and actions assume that a transdisciplinary approach has already been determined to be appropriate for a given research agenda.

Big-picture goals and considerations for transdisciplinary fisheries research

We identified that crucial aims for TFR are to dismantle traditional disciplinary and institutional silos through processes of co-production, and to find innovative solutions to complex fishery problems by forming novel alliances and collaborations among interested partners. Below we outline four big-picture goals that fit under these aims along with considerations that can help researchers achieve those goals.

Goal 1: Embody transdisciplinary approaches during all stages of research

Consideration 1: be open-minded and adaptable, goal 2: ensure fisheries research is inclusive and equitable, consideration 2: critically evaluate the research process and our role within it, goal 3: design fisheries research so that it is credible, relevant, actionable, and impactful., consideration 3: be solutions-oriented, goal 4: consistently and clearly communicate with all partners throughout a project, consideration 4: communicate in ways that are sensitive to cultural and sectoral differences, barriers to conducting transdisciplinary fisheries research.

Although the big picture goals and considerations outlined above are useful for framing the direction of TFR, we also identified several barriers to conducting transdisciplinary work. Discussion of barriers was prominent during the workshop; however, we summarize them in three key points as details on barriers have been addressed in several recent works (Hein et al. 2018 ; Jarvis et al. 2020 ; Kelly et al. 2019 ; Österblom et al. 2020 ).

Barrier 1: Institutional inertia leads to lack of support for TFR

The incongruity between intention and action described above for academic institutions also emerged in the realm of funding opportunities (Sievanen et al. 2012 ; Said et al. 2019 ), a barrier that was especially relevant for those of us living in developing countries that are already limited in research funds. We discussed difficulties in finding grants tailored to transdisciplinary work as well as lack of financial support to conduct dissemination of findings and community engagement. Generally, the sentiment was that funding systems are stagnant despite a purported desire to change. Funding agencies claim to be advancing transdisciplinary research; however, review and evaluation committees tend to favour straight-forward, low-risk projects that can be easily evaluated and measured for success. This is an example of culture within a system (sensu Schein 2017 ) reinforcing institutional and disciplinary norms.

Barrier 2: Lack of recognition for the additional time and emotional labour involved with TFR

Barrier 3: lack of mentorship and few opportunities for development of skills required to be effective transdisciplinary fisheries researchers, actions for ecrs, established researchers, and institutions to enable transdisciplinary fisheries research.

In the following section we outline several key actions that can be taken by ECRs, established researchers, and institutions to help overcome barriers and enable TFR. We supplement these sections with three boxes outlining concrete strategies or new models for enacting change based on our experiences.

Actions for early career researchers

Ecr action 1: develop a peer mentorship and/or community mentorship network, box 1—development of peer mentorship networks.

Peer mentoring can provide a much-needed opportunity for ECRs to learn how to become more transdisciplinary researchers, providing training and support to move away from traditional academic working styles which are often highly hierarchical and centered on individual success. Peer mentoring can be done as groups or in pairs and provides academic, career, social and psychological benefits (Lorenzetti et al., 2019 ). The additional challenges faced by transdisciplinary researchers make peer mentorship particularly useful because it allows ECRs to cultivate long-term supportive professional relationships (Kensington-Miller, 2018 ), which are essential when traditional mentor/mentee relationships fall short. Peer mentorship also provides additional emotional support and encouragement (McGuire and Reger 2003 ), and assists ECRs with developing research skills and navigating academic institutions (Lorenzetti et al., 2019 ) ECRs at the Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods (RIEL) at Charles Darwin University established a reading group to learn together about intersectional feminist values and how to apply them within the context of academia and environmental research. The group combines Mac Namara et al.’s ( 2020 ) peer mentoring model with a book club structure. Members take turns choosing topics for discussion, enabling them to consider how to work as researchers and support one another. Topics have included power dynamics encountered as ECRs, how success is measured in academia, and how to improve representation of marginalized voices. Learning together about the structural and cultural barriers faced by ECRs reveals the shortcomings of traditional approaches to academia. The group functions as a place to build relationships, share anxieties and successes, and learn from others’ perspectives and approaches. The network also provides a safe space for voices to be heard and for critiques and self-reflection to occur. The lack of hierarchy in these relationships enables ECRs to learn together and construct their own work culture away from their own disciplines (Kensington-Miller, 2018 ).

ECR Action 2: Clearly describe and communicate processes and methods used in TFR

Actions for established researchers, established researcher action 1: be available for consistent and holistic mentorship, established researcher action 2: make space for ecr voices, actions for institutions.

Institutional changes are among the most difficult to enact due to institutional inertia and bureaucracy, but they are also perhaps the most transformative given the scale on which they occur. The ideas we present here are lofty, but sorely needed to realize the promise of TFR.

Institution Action 1: Be willing to critique and dismantle academic individualism and the academic “superiority complex”

Box 2—a case study on reimagining lab hierarchies.

The “Centre for Indigenous Fisheries” (CIF; launched in January 2021) at the University of British Columbia comprises a team of researchers who work together as just that – a team . The CIF’s research is not about any one person, it’s about all. As such, the group collectively decided against naming the lab after any one team member. Each student in the CIF belongs to a research project that is partnered with Indigenous communities and/or organizations. Most students work in paired contexts, where they can support one another on interrelated aspects of a larger project or program. Students develop independently as well as collectively, receiving context-specific training and research support through these interactions, and each week team meetings are led by a student coordinator to discuss project progress. It is through this multi­layered mentorship model, which will soon be bolstered by an Indigenous Advisory Council for the CIF (launching in 2022), that student training needs are fulfilled to become well-rounded, highly skilled, and independent yet deeply collaborative researchers that are needed to solve the problems we face today. By following this model, students receive extensive training and guidance from academics, their diverse advisory committees, the communities they engage with, specialized departmental courses that are co-developed with Indigenous partners, as well as one another (see Box 1 ). This nested approach is fluid and non­hierarchical, where students find mentors in their supervisor(s) and advisors, instructors, peers, practitioners, and partners to suit different stages of their research process and meet the needs that arise along their learning experience (Fouché and Lunt 2010 ). This both minimizes risk for students and can help alleviate mentor/mentee power imbalances that might exist or arise (Jones and Brown 2011 ).

Institution Action 2: Establish functional education and mentorship programs for ECRs in TFR

Institution action 3: build funding structures that support all parts of tfr.

Funders need to critically examine how they solicit and evaluate research funds and rethink who is represented on selection committees (e.g., include non-academics) (Nyboer et al. 2021 ). Finally, funding for TFR needs to be allocated more equitably and in ways that do not reinforce the usual reward schemes based on publications as the primary measure of impact. Having strategic funding opportunities for the global south or those from racialized or Indigenous communities is essential for realizing what TFR can offer. This is even more important to TFR in some developing countries where funding is limited and tends to adhere to more mainstream approaches. A good example of such funding is the Global Challenges Research Fund- UK Research and Innovation Network that focuses on marine cultural heritage and uses arts and humanities to produce less traditional yet impactful research outputs. Funded projects have produced crafts, music videos, children's books, 3D models, museums, expeditions, cultural festivals, and community boat building associations among other things that promoted their way of life.

BOX 3—ArcticNet as an institution looking to make chang e

ArcticNet is an example of an institution (although not specifically fisheries focused) that has evolved over time to promote transdisciplinary research and support ECRs in this field. ArcticNet is a research network established in 2003 that supports natural, social, and health science in the Canadian Arctic and stands out from similar networks by turning their transdisciplinary language around synergy, knowledge exchange, training, and communication into concrete actions. For instance, ECRs can access funding to attend training to develop their understanding of Indigenous perspectives and how to engage in ethical research. Inuit ECRs with non-academic backgrounds can apply for dedicated funding that supports community-led research and receive support from regional Inuit advisors who also review research proposals and promote community and Inuit perspectives across the Network. Results are shared with both northern residents who can receive support to attend the annual scientific meeting (ASM) for free, and policymakers through regional summary reports that include ECR results. Such steps from a large institution support and inspire ECRs, and the results of these changes are obvious and visible. For example, the ASM has shifted from a standard scientific conference to one where most posters rely on plain language and visuals to share results. There are line-ups to access the community-based presentation sessions, and a dedicated ‘Student Day’ features career development panels and research elevator pitches. Everyone from field assistants to Professors Emeritus dance the night away to an Inuk band after the conference banquet.

Institution Action 4: Critically rethink and implement new ways of measuring impact

In this paper, we synthesize the perspectives and experiences of ECRs from around the world who work (or aim to work) in TFR. Although we acknowledge that TFR is not the only effective  approach to fisheries research, it has been shown to be successful at finding solutions to complex and dynamic problems since it is adaptable and responsive to specific challenges in a wide variety of contexts. The findings of our workshop aligned well with outcomes of aseveral recent papers investigating this topic (e.g., Turgeon et al. 2018 ; Kelly et al. 2019 ; Andrews et al. 2020 ; Sellberg et al. 2021 ). Each of these pieces  addressed the common theme that, although TFR is widely acknowledged as critical to bridge science-policy-practice boundaries and to address the ‘wicked problems’ facing fisheries, support for this work is lacking. There is a disconnect between the expectations placed upon ECRs to be the generation that 'fixes the problem', and the actual support that is provided to do so; this can manifest in declines in mental health with ECRs making serious personal sacrifices in the face of demands to uphold scientific rigour, societal impact, community engagement, and self-care (Sellberg et al. 2021 ). Barriers to TFR revolve largely around current academic structures, cultures, and metrics of impact that do not uphold or recognize efforts required to support TFR (Singh et al. 2019 ). Here we suggest several avenues that can and should be enacted now to lower these barriers. A critical finding that bears further recognition is that barriers to achieving these actions are higher in low-to-middle income countries. Researchers already experiencing discrimination for other reasons (e.g., race, gender) will be further disadvantaged. Networks, academic / mentorship support, and funding are especially necessary in the global south where coastal populations are disproportionately more reliant on fisheries for food security and employment (Golden et al. 2016 ), where fewer research funds are available (Weyl et al. 2021 ), and where mentorship opportunities are lacking. It is critical that researchers from the high-income countries facilitate redistribution of funds via collaborations and partnerships in LMICs and ensure equitable sharing of benefits including access to resources. An noteworthy outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic is that the normalization of virtual conferences has allowed for increased inclusivity across various groups (e.g., different income brackets, global north vs. global south, ECR vs. established professional) (Davids et al. 2021 ). In our workshop this format was powerful. It highlighted that the day-to-day tasks of conducting TFR are profoundly different given various contexts,  and that best practices will vary based on the research question, location, groups involved, and team size. On the other hand, the striking similarity and congruence in perspectives highlight the common goals and considerations we share as transdisciplinaryECRs despite our widespread geopolitical experiences. Fisheries science as a discipline has evolved and grown from its historical quantitative and natural science origins toward a broader, holistic, systems-oriented view that embraces both ecological and human dimensions. Here we argue that it is time for all actors in fisheries research to take action to support and uphold the value of these approaches.

Andrews EJ, Harper S, Cashion T, Palacios-Abrantes J, Blythe J, Daly J, Eger S, Hoover C, Talloni-Alvarez N, Teh L, Bennett N, Epstein G, Knott C, Newell SL, Whitney CK (2020) Supporting early career researchers: insights from interdisciplinary marine scientists. ICES J Mar Sci 77:476–485

Article   Google Scholar  

Armitage D, Berkes F, Doubleday N (2010) Adaptive co-management: collaboration, learning, and multi-level governance. UBC Press, Vancouver

Google Scholar  

Azzurro E, Moschella P, Maynou F (2011) Tracking signals of change in Mediterranean fish diversity based on local ecological knowledge. PLoS ONE 69:e24885. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024885

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Barnes HM, Harmsworth G, Tipa G, Henwood W, McCreanor T (2021) Indigenous-led environmental research in Aotearoa New Zealand: beyond a transdisciplinary model for best practice, empowerment, and action. AlterNative 17:306–316

Bennett NJ (2019) Marine social science for the peopled seas. Coast Manag 47:244–252

Berkes F (2018) Sacred ecology. Routledge, New York

Beverton RJH, Holt SJ (1957) On the dynamics of exploited fish populations. Fish Investig 19:1–533

Bobek E, Tversky B (2016) Creating visual explanations improves learning. Cogn Res Princ Implic 1(1):27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-016-0031-6

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Brandt P, Ernst A, Gralla F, Luederitz C, Lang DJ, Newig J, Von Wehrden H (2013) A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol Econ 92:1–15

Brasier MJ, McCormack S, Bax N, Caccavo JA, Cavan E, Ericson JA, Weldrick CK (2020) Overcoming the obstacles faced by early career researchers in marine science: lessons from the marine ecosystem assessment for the Southern Ocean. Front Mar Sci 7:692

Britz PJ, Hara MM, Weyl OLF, Tapela BN, Rouhani QA (2015) Scoping study on the development and sustainable utilisation of inland fisheries in South Africa, Volume 1: Research Report. WRC Report No TT 615/1/14, South Africa

Chapman JM, Algera D, Dick M, Hawkins EE, Lawrence MJ, Lennox RJ et al (2015) Being relevant: practical guidance for early career researchers interested in solving conservation problems. Global Ecol Conser 4:334–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/jgecco201507013

Christian K, Johnstone C, Larkins JA, Wright W, Doran MR (2021) A survey of early-career researchers in Australia. Elife 10:1–19

Chuenpagdee R, Jentoft S (2019) Transdisciplinarity for small scale fisheries governance, analysis, and practice, vol 21. MARE Publication Series. Springer, New York, p 479

Book   Google Scholar  

Cooke SJ, Rytwinski T, Taylor JJ, Nyboer EA, Nguyen VM, Bennett JR, Smol JP (2020) On “success” in applied environmental research—What is it, how can it be achieved, and how does one know when it has been achieved? Environ Rev 28:357–372

Cooke SJ, Nguyen VM, Chapman JM, Reid AJ, Landsman SJ, Young N, Hinch SG, Schott S, Mandrak NE, Semeniuk CA (2021a) Knowledge co-production: a pathway to effective fisheries management, conservation, and governance. Fisheries 46:89–97

Cooke SJ, Nguyen VM, Young N, Reid AJ, Roche DG, Bennett NJ, Bennett JR (2021b) Contemporary authorship guidelines fail to recognize diverse contributions in conservation science research. Ecol Solut Evid 2:e12060

Cundill G, Roux DJ, Parker JN (2015) Nurturing communities of practice for transdisciplinary research. Ecol Soc 20:22

Cvitanovic C, Hobday AJ, van Kerkhoff L, Wilson SK, Dobbs KA, Marshall N (2015) Improving knowledge exchange among scientists and decision-makers to facilitate the adaptive governance of marine resources: a review of knowledge and research needs. Ocean Coast Manag 112:25–35

Cvitanovic C, Shellock RJ, Mackay M, van Putten EI, Karcher DB, Dickey-Collas M et al (2021a) Strategies for building and managing ‘trust’ to enable knowledge exchange at the interface of environmental science and policy. Environ Sci Policy 123:179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/JENVSCI202105020

Cvitanovic C, Mackay M, Shellock RJ, van Putten EI, Karcher DB, Dickey-Collas M (2021b) Understanding and evidencing a broader range of ‘successes’ that can occur at the interface of marine science and policy. Mar Policy 134:104802

Davelaar D (2021) Transformation for sustainability: a deep leverage points approach. Sustain Sci 16:727–747

Davids R, Scheelbeek P, Sobratee N, Green R, Häesler B, Mabhaudhi T, Chatterjee S, Venkateshmurthy NS, Mace G, Dangour A, Slotow R (2021) Towards the three dimensions of sustainability for international research team collaboration: learnings from the sustainable and healthy food systems research programme. Sustainability 13(22):12427

Davies SW, Putnam HM, Ainsworth T, Baum JK, Bove CB, Crosby SC, Bates AE (2021) Promoting inclusive metrics of success and impact to dismantle a discriminatory reward system in science. PLoS Biol 19(6):e3001282

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Dlouhá J, Heras R, Mulà I, Salgado FP, Henderson L (2019) Competences to address SDGs in higher education—a reflection on the equilibrium between systemic and personal approaches to achieve transformative action. Sustainability 11(13):3664

Eigenbrode SD, O’Rourke M, Wulfhorst JD, Althoff DM, Goldberg CM, Merrill K, Morse W, Nielsen-Pincus M, Stephens J, Winowiecki J, Bosque-Pérez NA (2007) Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. Bioscience 57:55–64. https://doi.org/10.1641/B570109

Evans MC, Cvitanovic C (2018) An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers. Palgrave Commun 41:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0144-2

Fabian Y, Bollmann K, Brang P, Heiri C, Olschewski R, Rigling A, Stofer S, Holderegger R (2019) How to close the science-practice gap in nature conservation? information sources used by practitioners. Biol Cons 235:93–101

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) (2012) Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. FAO, Rome

Filyushkina A, Ryu H, Kadykalo AN, Murali R, Campagne CS, Washbourne CL, Peter S, Saidi N, Sarzynski T, Pisa PF, Ávila-Flores G, Amiar T (2022) Engaging at the science -policy interface as an early-career researcher: experiences and perceptions in the field of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ecosyst People (In Press) 00:000–000

Fisher JR, Wood SA, Bradford MA, Kelsey TR (2020) Improving scientific impact: how to practice science that influences environmental policy and management. Conserv Sci Pract 2(7):e210

Fouché C, Lunt N (2010) Nested mentoring relationships: reflections on a practice project for mentoring research capacity amongst social work practitioners. J Soc Work 10(4):391–406

Frisk E, Larson KL (2011) Educating for sustainability: competencies & practices for transformative action. J Sustain Educ 2(1):1–20

Gale AP, Chapman JO, White DE, Ahluwalia P, Williamson AKJ, Peacock KR, Cooke SJ (2021) On embracing the concept of becoming environmental problem solvers: the trainee perspective on key elements of success, essential skills, and mindset. Environ Rev e-First. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2021-0040

Glavovic B, Limburg K, Liu KK, Emeis KC, Thomas H, Kremer H et al (2015) Living on the margin in the Anthropocene: engagement arenas for sustainability research and action at the ocean–land interface. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:232–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/jcosust201506003

Golden C, Allison EH, Cheung WWL, Dey MM, Halpern BS, McCauley DJ, Smith M, Vaitla B, Zeller D, Myers SS (2016) Fall in fish catch threatens human health. Nature 534:317–320

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Haapasaari P, Kulmala S, Kuikka S (2012) Growing into interdisciplinarity: how to converge biology, economics, and social science in fisheries research? Ecol Soc 17:6. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04503-170106

Halliday RG, Fanning LP (2006) A history of marine fisheries science in Atlantic Canada and its role in the management of fisheries. Proc Nova Scotian Inst Sci 43:159–183

Halliday RG, Pinhorn AT (1996) North Atlantic fishery management systems: a comparison of management methods and resource trends. J Northwest Atl Fish Sci 20:1–144

Hansson S, Polk M (2018) Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: the usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact. Res Eval 27(2):132–144

Hein CJ, Ten Hoeve JE, Gopalakrishnan S, Livneh B, Adams HD, Marino E, Weiler CS (2018) Overcoming early career barriers to interdisciplinary climate change research. Wires Clim Change 9:e530

Hernandez-Aguilera JN, Anderson W, Bridges AL, Fernandez MP, Hansen WD, Maurer ML, Ilboudo Nébié EK, Stock A (2021) Supporting interdisciplinary careers for sustainability. Nat Sustain 4:374–375. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00679-y

Hobday AJ, Spillman CM, Eveson P, Hartog JR (2016) Seasonal forecasting for decision support in marine fisheries and aquaculture. Fish Oceanogr 25:45–56

House J, Kleiber D, Steenbergen DJ, Stacey N (2022) Participatory monitoring in community-based fisheries management through a gender lens. Ambio. 00:000-000.

Jarvis RM, Borrelle SB, Forsdick NJ, Pérez-Hämmerle KV, Dubois NS, Griffin SR et al (2020) Navigating spaces between conservation research and practice: are we making progress? Ecol Sol Evi. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-831912028

Jeanson AL, Soroye P, Kadykalo AN, Ward TD, Paquette E, Abrams AE, Cooke SJ (2020) Twenty actions for a “good Anthropocene”—perspectives from early-career conservation professionals. Environ Rev 28(1):99–108

Jentoft S, Chuenpagdee R (2009) Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem. Mar Policy 33:553–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/jmarpol200812002

Johannes RE, Freeman MM, Hamilton RJ (2000) Ignore fishers’ knowledge and miss the boat. Fish Fish 1(3):257–271

Jones R, Brown D (2011) The mentoring relationship as a complex adaptive system: finding a model for our experience. Mentor Tutor Partnersh Learn 19(4):401–418

Kadykalo AN, Cooke SJ, Young N (2021a) The role of western-based scientific, indigenous and local knowledge in wildlife management and conservation. People Nat 3(3):610–626. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan310194

Kadykalo AN, Buxton RT, Morrison P, Anderson CM, Bickerton H, Francis CM et al (2021b) Bridging research and practice in conservation. Conserv Biol 35(6):1725–1737. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi13732

Karcher DB, Cvitanovic C, Colvin RM, van Putten IE, Reed MS (2021) Is this what success looks like? Mismatches between the aims, claims, and evidence used to demonstrate impact from knowledge exchange processes at the interface of environmental science and policy. Environ Sci Policy 125:202–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/JENVSCI202108012

Kelly R, Mackay M, Nash KL, Cvitanovic C, Allison EH, Armitage D et al (2019) Ten tips for developing interdisciplinary socio-ecological researchers. Socio-Ecol Pract Res 1:149–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-019-00018-2

Kemp A (2013) Collaboration vs individualism: what is better for the rising academic? Qualit Rep 18(100):1–8

Kensington-Miller B (2018) Surviving the first year: new academics flourishing in a multidisciplinary community of practice with peer mentoring. Prof Dev Educ 44(5):678–689

Klein JT (1990) Interdisciplinarity: history, theory, and practice. Wayne State University Press, Detroit, Michigan

Klein JT (2009) Creating interdisciplinary campus cultures: a model for strength and sustainability. Wiley, San Francisco

Lang DJ, Wiek A (2021) Structuring and advancing solution-oriented research for sustainability. Ambio 51:31–35

Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P et al (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7:25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11625-011-0149-X/TABLES/3

Lewis JM, Ross S, Holden T (2012) The how and why of academic collaboration: disciplinary differences and policy implications. High Educ 64(5):693–708

Lorenzetti DL, Shipton L, Nowell L, Jacobsen M, Lorenzetti L, Clancy T, Paolucci EO (2019) A systematic review of graduate student peer mentorship in academia. Mentor Tutor Partnersh Learn 27(5):549–576

Mac Namara SC, Rauh AE, Blum MM, Russo N, Green MA, Nangia S (2020) Peer mentoring for women in STEM. In: ASEE virtual annual conference content access, June 2020

Macher C, Steins NA, Ballesteros M, Kraan M, Frangoudes K, Bailly D, Bertignac M, Colloca F, Fitzpatrick M, Garcia D, Little R, Mardle S, Murillas A, Pawlowski L, Philippe M, Prellezo R, Sabatella E, Thebaud O, Ulrich C (2021) Towards transdisciplinary decision-support processes in fisheries: experiences and recommendations from a multidisciplinary collective of researchers. Aquat Living Resour 34:13. https://doi.org/10.1051/alr/2021010

Mackinson S (2022) The fall and rise of industry participation in fisheries science – a European story. ICES J Mar Sci. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsac041

Mauser W, Klepper G, Rice M, Schmalzbauer BS, Hackmann H, Leemans R, Moore H (2013) Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:420–431

McGuire GM, Reger J (2003) Feminist co-mentoring: a model for academic professional development. NWSA J 15:54–72

McPhearson T, Raymond CM, Gulsrud N, Albert C, Coles N, Fagerholm N, Vierikko K (2021) Radical changes are needed for transformations to a good Anthropocene. Urban Sustain 1(1):1–13

Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D, Robinson J, Olsson L et al (2014) The future of sustainability science—a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain Sci 9:239–246

Monroe JB, Baxter CV, Olden JD, Angermeier PL (2009) Freshwaters in the public eye: understanding the role of images and media in aquatic conservation. Fisheries 34(12):581–585. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446-3412581

Nash JM, Collins BN, Loughlin SE, Solbrig M, Harvey R, Krishnan-Sarin S, Spirito A (2003) Training the transdisciplinary scientist: a general framework applied to tobacco use behavior. Nicotine Tob Res 5:S41–S53

Nyboer EA, Nguyen VM, Young N, Rytwinski T, Taylor JJ, Lane JF, Cooke SJ (2021) Supporting actionable science for environmental policy: advice for funding agencies from decision makers. Front Cons Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2021.693129

Ommer RE, Perry RI (2011) Social-ecological systems in fisheries. In: Ommer RE, Perry RI, Cochrane K, Cury P (eds) World fisheries: a social-ecological analysis. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Österblom H, Cvitanovic C, van Putten I, Addison P, Blasiak R, Jouffray JB, Bebbington J, Hall J, Ison S, LeBris A, Mynott S, Reid D, Sugimoto A (2020) Science-industry collaboration: sideways or highways to ocean sustainability? One Earth 3:79–88

Pannell JL, Dencer-Brown AM, Greening SS, Hume EA, Jarvis RM, Mathieu C, Mugford J, Runghen R (2019) An early-career perspective on encouraging collaborative and interdisciplinary research in ecology. Ecosphere 10:e02899

Pohl C, Hadorn GH (2007) Principles for designing transdisciplinary research. Oekom Verlag, Zurich, Switzerland

Pooley SP, Mendelsohn JA, Milner-Gulland EJ (2014) Hunting down the chimera of multiple disciplinarity in conservation science. Conserv Biol 28(1):22–32

Ravenscroft J, Liakata M, Clare A, Duma D (2017) Measuring scientific impact beyond academia: an assessment of existing impact metrics and proposed improvements. PLoS ONE 12(3):e0173152

Reid AJ, Eckert LE, Lane J-F, Young N, Hinch SG, Darimont CT, Cooke SJ, Ban NC, Marshall A (2020) “Two-Eyed Seeing”: an indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management. Fish Fish 22:243–261

Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1974) Wicked problems in man-made futures: readings in society, technology, and design. Hutchinson Educational, London

Said A, Chuenpagdee R, Aguilar-Perera A, Arce-Ibarra A, Gurung T, Bishop B, Leopold M, Márquez-Pérez A, de Mattos SM, Pierce G, Nayak P, Jentoft S (2019) The principles of transdisciplinary research in small-scale fisheries: analysis and practice in transdisciplinarity for small-scale fisheries governance. Publication Series, New York

Schein EH (2017) Organizational culture and leadership, 5th edn. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken

Schlüter M, McAllister RRJ, Arlinghaus R, Bunnefeld N, Eisenack K, Hölker F, Milner-Gulland EJ, Müller B (2012) New horizons for managing the environment: a review of coupled social-ecological systems modeling. Nat Resour Model 25:219–273

Sellberg MM, Cockburn J, Holden PB, Lam DPM (2021) Toward a caring transdisciplinary research practice: navigating science, society, and self. Ecosystems and People 17:292–330

Sherman S (2011) Changing the world: the science of transformative action. Positive psychology as social change. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 329–345

Sievanen L, Campbell LM, Leslie HM (2012) Challenges to interdisciplinary research in ecosystem-based management. Conserv Biol 26:315–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01808.x

Singh GG, Farjalla VF, Chen B, Pelling AE, Ceyhan E, Dominik M et al (2019) Researcher engagement in policy deemed societally beneficial yet unrewarded. Front Ecol Environ 17(7):375–382

Smith LT (2021) Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books Ltd, London

Steelman TA, Andrews E, Baines S, Bharadwaj L, Bjornson ER, Bradford L, Cardinal K, Carriere G et al (2019) Identifying transformational space for transdisciplinarity: using art to access the hidden third. Sustain Sci 14:771–790

Steiner G, Posch A (2006) Higher education for sustainability by means of transdisciplinary case studies: an innovative approach for solving complex real-world problems. J Clean Prod 14:877–890

Stöhr C, Lundhold C, Crona B, Chabay I (2014) Stakeholder participation and sustainable fisheries: an integrative framework for assessing adaptive co-management processes. Ecol Soc 19:14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06638-190314

Stokols D (2014) Training the next generation of transdisciplinarians. In: O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Eigenbrode S, Wulfhorst J (eds) Enhancing communication & collaboration in interdisciplinary research. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA, pp 56–81

Strasser B, Baudry J, Mahr D, Sanchez G, Tancoigne E (2019) “Citizen science”? Rethinking science and public participation. Sci Technol Stud 32:52–76

Turgeon K, Hawkshaw SCF, Dinning KM, Quinn BK, Edwards DN, Wor C, Parlee CE et al (2018) Enhancing fisheries education and research through the Canadian fisheries research network: a student perspective on interdisciplinarity, collaboration, and inclusivity. FACETS 3:963–980

Weyl OLF, Barkhuizen L, Christison K, Dalu T, Hlungwani HA, Impson D, Sankar K, Mandrak NE, Marr M, Sara JR, Smit NM, Tweddle D, Vine NG, Wepener V, Zvavahera M, Cowx IG (2021) Ten research questions to support South Africa’s Inland fisheries policy. Afr J Aquat Sci 46:1–10. https://doi.org/10.2989/1608591420201822774

Whitmer A, Ogden L, Lawton J, Sturner P, Groffman PM, Schneider L et al. (2010) The engaged university: providing a platform for research that transforms society. Front Ecol Environ 8: 314–321

Wilson ME, Laufer AE, Howard EM, Wong-Ala JATK (2021) Lessons from the trenches: students’ perspectives of their own marine transdisciplinary education. Front Mar Sci 7: 592368

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Daniel Ten Veen for volunteering to provide live technical support during the Zoom event. We also thank the organizing board at the World Fisheries Congress (WFC) for supporting this workshop, and especially Jane Ham for all direct communication with WFC. We are grateful to our mentors who have encouraged and enabled our development as transdisciplinary researchers. Funding was provided to EAN by the Fonds de Recherche du Quebec – nature et technologie grant number 295667.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, Carleton Technology and Training Centre, Ottawa, ON, 4440KK1S 5B6, Canada

Elizabeth A. Nyboer, Amanda L. Jeanson, Andrew N. Kadykalo & Steven J. Cooke

Centre for Indigenous Fisheries, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, The University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canada

Andrea J. Reid

Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7005, Australia

Rachel Kelly & Mary Mackay

Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7000, Australia

CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere, Castray Esplanade, Battery Point, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia

Mary Mackay & Madeline E. Green

Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 49, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia

Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Ellengowan Dr, Casuarina, NT, 0810, Australia

Jenny House

Independent, Fort Simpson, NWT, Canada

Sarah M. Arnold

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, 215 Tower Road, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

Paul W. Simonin

Graduate School of Fisheries and Environmental Sciences, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, 852-8521, Japan

Mary Grace C. Sedanza

Institute of Aquaculture, College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of the Philippines Visayas, 5023, Miagao, Iloilo, Philippines

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

Emma D. Rice

Field Science Center for Northern Biosphere, Akkeshi Marine Station, Hokkaido University, Hokkaidô, Japan

T. E. Angela L. Quiros

COISPA Tecnologia & Ricerca, Stazione Sperimentale Per Lo Studio Delle Risorse del Mare, Bari, Italy

Andrea Pierucci

Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

Kelly Ortega-Cisneros

Strathclyde Centre for Environmental Law and Governance (SCELG), University of Strathclyde Law School, Glasgow, UK

Julia N. Nakamura

DTU Aqua, National Institute of Aquatic Resources, North Sea Science Park, 9850, Hirtshals, Denmark

Valentina Melli

Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, Entebbe, Uganda

Stella Mbabazi

Fisheries Ecosystems Laboratory (LabPesq), Oceanographic Institute, University of São Paulo (USP), Brazil - Praça do Oceanográfico, 11 - sala 107 - Cidade Universitária, São Paulo (SP), Brazil

Mariana S. L. Martins

Institute of Fisheries Policy and Development Studies, College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of the Philippines Visayas, 5023, Miagao, Iloilo, Philippines

Anne Brigette B. Ledesma

Environmental and Conservation Sciences, College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Murdoch University, 90 South St, Murdoch, WA, 6150, Australia

Clara Obregón

Harry Butler Institute, Murdoch University, 90 South St, Murdoch, WA, 6150, Australia

School of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Ulster University, Cromore Rd, Coleraine, BT52 1SA, UK

Chepkemboi K. Labatt

Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute-KMFRI, Ocean and Coastal Systems, PO Box 81651-80100, Mombasa, Kenya

Department of Marine Science, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand

Michael Heldsinger

RPS Group, Oceans and Coastal Sector, Level 2/27-31 Troode St, West Perth, WA, 6005, Australia

Department of Biological Sciences, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

Jessica L. Fuller

Programa de Doctorado en Ciencias con mención en Manejo de Recursos Acuáticos Renovables, Departamento de Oceanografía, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile

Milagros Franco-Meléndez

Centro de Investigación Oceanográfica COPAS-Sur Austral, EPOMAR, Departamento de Oceanografía, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile

Centre for Functional Biodiversity, School of Life Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

Matthew J. Burnett

School of Science, Technology and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD, Australia

Jessica A. Bolin

Charles Darwin Research Station, Charles Darwin Foundation, Puerto Ayora, Galápagos Islands, Ecuador

Solange Andrade-Vera

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth A. Nyboer .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests in the publication of this work.

Data availability

No new data were generated for this study.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

1. List of countries where workshop participants live and/or conduct research

2. summaries of participants' responses to the online google forms presented during the workshop..

Discussion Question 1: Based on your experience as an ECR, what do you believe are key goals for TFR in the future? Think about intellectual challenges and important areas of future research to guide the field and to produce knowledge that is important for sustainable fishery systems.

Include transdisciplinary perspectives during all stages of research

Engage with diverse stakeholders to understand non-academic needs, concerns, and requirements.

Co-design and co-produce studies with all relevant stakeholders, rights holders, and decision makers.

Engage with fisheries as socio-ecological systems for a holistic approach to finding solutions.

Ensure fisheries research is inclusive, relevant, and equitable

Consider social context and potential socio-environmental and/or intersectoral conflicts.

Addresses inequalities and empower marginalized and/or vulnerable groups.

Engage in bias recognition and reduction at both individual and institutional levels.

Ensure research itself is not part of the problem (i.e., research does not exclude marginalized voices).

Ensure fisheries research is impactful, solution oriented, and transformative

Implement transdisciplinary fisheries research within management (i.e., government agencies).

Build trust with stakeholders and rights holders (example: sign non-disclosure agreements).

Paying specific attention to the concrete on-the-ground research impacts; people on the ground should be assessing impact.

Improve and promote communication between researchers, policy makers, and fisheries managers

Include communication with policy/decision makers during postgraduate training.

Encourage alternative communication formats (i.e., policy briefs, infographics) that are more targeted for management, practitioners, and policy makers.

Discussion Question 2 : What are some challenges faced by ECRs working in transdisciplinary settings? How can these barriers be overcome? For each challenge, please identify a possible solution.

Institutional inertia and barriers lead to lack of support for transdisciplinary research

Facilitate access for ECRs to transdisciplinary mentors.

Provide more financial support for ECRs in transdisciplinary research.

Improve opportunities for interdisciplinary education at universities and in professional development settings.

Lack of opportunity for skill development to engage in transdisciplinary research

Create more mentoring programs for transdisciplinary research in universities and beyond.

Ensure opportunities for ECRs to engage with end-users, policy makers, stakeholders, and rights holders.

Provide ECRs training in facilitation and negotiation, interpersonal skills, stakeholder engagement, policy

Lack of funding opportunities and recognition for transdisciplinary research

Incentivize transdisciplinary fisheries research through grants, awards, recognition schemes, job opportunities; but exercise caution around attracting shallow attempts at these approaches.

De-emphasize disciplinary metrics of evaluation.

Ensure alternative metrics for measuring ‘success’ amongst ECRs.

Acknowledge the extra time required to understand multiple discipline and knowledge structures, and to engage in co-production.

Lack of transdisciplinary networks for ECRs

Encourage networking through transdisciplinary conferences and other activities.

Share transdisciplinary research opportunities more widely with ECRs.

Create regional/global collaborative networks that mobilize ECR research and outputs and amplify younger researcher voices.

Recognizing who can contribute in these settings vs. who doesn’t have access; how do we build the network out in equitable ways?

Link to categorized Mural board

https://app.mural.co/invitation/mural/wfc2021ecrworkshop0407/1631924266000?sender=uc9876a0592cbf094c3530448&key=afa22fdc-49d2-43bc-880a-91dfa8012031

1. Embody transdisciplinary approaches during all stages of research

dismantle traditional disciplinary and institutional silos

co-create new knowledge

novel alliances and collaborations

1.1 Engage with fisheries as socio-ecological systems for a holistic approach to finding solutions.

push to appreciate social science findings

ensure qualitative data is collected properly

understand the sociocultural contexts

1.2 Co-design and co-produce studies with all relevant stakeholders, rights holders, and decision makers.

include bottom-up communication

encourage new ways of listening

communication and collaboration

build trust

don’t make assumptions about what is important to stakeholder

2. Ensure fisheries research is inclusive (legitimate), relevant (salient), credible, and equitable

1.1 Understand non-academic concerns.

social context

socio-environmental and/or intersectoral conflicts

1.2 Address inequalities and empower marginalized and/or vulnerable groups

bias recognition and reduction

methods used do not exclude marginalized voices

non-tokenistic

3. Ensure fisheries research is impactful, solution oriented, and transformative

3.1 Define goals through co-development

collaborative problem identification

ensure knowledge translation

3.2 Build trust with stakeholders and rights holders

4. Consistently and clearly communicate with policy makers, fisheries managers, governing bodies, communities, and all other relevant stakeholder groups

4.1 Communicate science to the public, to policy makers, managers, stakeholders

4.2 Develop alternative communication formats

re-envision research outputs

encourage engagement

B. CHALLENGES/BARRIERS

1. Institutional inertia and barriers

1.1 Academic isolation – don’t fit in anywhere

Bullet Bullet no clear departmental home

1.2 Mismatch between institutional (university) ambition and support

universities don’t have structures in place

limits on advisory committee makeup

institutional incentives for fast, low-risk project

1.2 Individualism and individual glory promoted

PIs and authors on papers must be individuals and not community groups

difficult to come into community contexts and not seem self-serving

1.3 Disciplinary norms within fisheries

favours quantitative approaches

inherent condescension within the academy towards non-academics

academic innovation of TD approaches questioned

1.4 Lack of funding opportunities (ambition mismatch, like universities)

difficulties finding grants

lack of funding allocated for project scoping and communication

lack of equitable funding for global south vs. global north

1.5 Lack of transdisciplinary networks for ECRs

lack of support network

struggles to connect and collaborate

Lack of recognition for the time and emotional labour

2.1 Longer timescales required to allow for integration and trust relationships with communities

little support for low-campus-residency models

Acknowledging the extra time required for funding and degree requirements

2.2 Metrics for valuing TDFR are not oriented in a way that facilitates good process

2.3 Emotional labour and energy required

Bullet relationship building and conflicts with a community group stakeholder

2.4 Pressure of having to know all disciplines

Lack of mentorship and few opportunities for development of skills

3.1 Knowledge translation workshop facilitation, community engagement

communication issues

communication suggestions

3.2 How to do research with impact; ‘best practices’ guides not available.

buzzwords – how to enact them

3.3 Extra work / burden of having to unlearn institutional structures/norm

3.4 Need to self-advocate

4. Other struggles

4.1 Disconnect between expectations felt by ECRs and perceived support

4.2 Mental health in terms of security and job security

lack of space for ECR voices

wo rse for minority groups

C. HOW TO ACHIEVE GOALS

1. Be self-reflexive and honest in the research process

honest and transparent about our methods,

self reflexive

positionality

equity and humility

develop shared languages

2. Be open minded and adaptable

willing to evolve

accept that you might never reach consensus -

shift norms within academic systems to transition towards locally led research

continual feedback and communication at each point.

3. Be solution oriented

actionable change that can implemented on the ground

focus stakeholder needs and requirements

documenting and sharing how we do TDFR

align goals with longer term projects

4. Communicate in ways that are sensitive across culture and sector

ask partners how they would like the research to be communicated

D. ACTIONS TO LOWER BARRIERS

1. Build up mentorship network (ECR)

initiate co-mentorship or peer-mentorship

networking through conferences

community mentorship

develop a best practices guide.

communicate social processes and methods used in TFR

Reforming fisheries education

2. Be available for good mentorship (Senior)

facilitate access to transdisciplinary mentors

create opportunities for ECRs to engage with non-academic partners

training in facilitation and negotiation

stakeholder engagement skills

3. Allow junior voices to be heard (Senior)

we must be problem solvers

lack of opportunity to make those changes.

4. Be willing to critique academic superiority (institution)

critique individualism

not everything is there to be studied

deconstructing academia is innovation

5. Build functional education and mentorship programs (institution)

mentoring programs for transdisciplinary research

improve opportunities for transdisciplinary learning

reform fisheries education towards more practical frameworks.

incentivize TD projects

ensure adequate mentorship.

build institutional flexibility to amplify marginalized

6. Support all parts of TFR (institution)

formal recognition of the time it takes

financial support for ECRs in TFR

grants, awards, recognition schemes

financial support for knowledge exchange

strategic funding opportunities for the global south

7. New ways of measuring impact

promote, appreciate, value

de-emphasize disciplinary metrics

value engagement

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Nyboer, E.A., Reid, A.J., Jeanson, A.L. et al. Goals, challenges, and next steps in transdisciplinary fisheries research: perspectives and experiences from early-career researchers. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 33 , 349–374 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-022-09719-6

Download citation

Received : 11 January 2022

Accepted : 08 July 2022

Published : 05 August 2022

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-022-09719-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Social-ecological systems
• Sustainability
• Knowledge transformation
• Co-production
• Institutions
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Indian Journal of Fisheries

About the Journal

The Indian Journal of Fisheries is published quarterly by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). Original contributions in the field of fish and fisheries science will be considered for publication in the Journal. The material submitted must be unpublished and not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Papers based on research which kills or damages any species, regarded as threatened/ endangered as per IUCN criteria or is as such listed in the Red Data Book appropriate to the geographic area concerned, will not be accepted by the Journal, unless the work has clear conservation objectives

Editorial Board

Current Issue

Assessment of marine fish stocks within india’s exclusiveeconomic zone: status report 2022.

Pelagic Fisheries of India – An overview

Spatial structure and distribution of ribbonfish trichiurus lepturus linnaeus, 1758 along the eastern arabian sea spatial structure and distribution of ribbonfish in eastern arabian sea, understanding the fishery dynamics and stock health of mahi-mahi coryphaena hippurus (linnaeus, 1758) from indian coastal waters stock status of mahi-mahi, stock status indicators for cobia rachycentron canadum in the indian eez stock status of cobia in indian eez, fishery, population dynamics and stock assessment of flat needlefish ablennes hians (valenciennes, 1846) from the south-eastern arabian sea off kerala coast, india stock dynamics of flat needlefish, fishery and reproductive biology of the spotted sardinella amblygaster sirm (walbaum, 1972) exploited along the southern coast of india stock dynamics of spotted sardinella, fishery, biology and population characteristics of frigate tuna auxis thazard (lacepede, 1800) from indian waters stock dynamics of auxis thazard, biology of the bombayduck harpadon nehereus (hamilton, 1822) from the north-eastern arabian sea, india biology of bombay duck in north eastern arabian sea, insights into reproductive dynamics and feeding biology of sphyraena putnamae jordan and seale, 1905 exploited in the indian eez stock dynamics of sphyraena putnamae, analysis of bycatches from mid-water trawl fishery targeting ribbonfish trichiurus lepturus on the north-west coast of india by-catches in mid-water trawl fishery, macrognathus aral (bloch and schneider 1801): growth, condition, age, mortality, recruitment and exploitation in running and stagnant ecosystems in gandak basin, india life history of m. aral under running and stagnant ecosystems, cage aquaculture of indian pompano for livelihood diversification of artisanal fishers: insights from andhra pradesh, india, investigations on growth performance of grass carp ctenopharyngodon idella (cuvier and valenciennes,1844) under forage crops and aquatic macrophyte feeding regimes growth performance of grass carp, performance of crustacean and insect meal based diets on the growth and digestive enzyme profile of pearlspot etroplus suratensis  (bloch, 1790) influence of crustacean and insect meal on pearlspot, etroplus suratensis, a comparative analysis of livelihood security among fish and dairy farmers in tripura, india running title: comparative analysis of livelihood security among fish and dairy farmers, population characteristics unravel occurrence of distinct stocks of yellowfin tuna (thunnus albacares) population in the indian seas, morphometry and length-weight relationships of the freshwater pearl mussel parreysia corrugata (muller 1774) (bivalvia: unionidae) from daya river, odisha, india, comparative study of heat shock and pressure shock for triploidy induction in rainbow trout (oncorhynchus mykiss), quantitative fishery assessment in tropical waters: stock dynamics and strategy options quantitative fish stock assessment strategies and options for tropical waters, information.

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.

Internet Explorer lacks support for the features of this website. For the best experience, please use a modern browser such as Chrome, Firefox, or Edge.

Evolving Wildlife Management Cultures of Governance Through Indigenous Knowledges and Perspectives

April 17, 2024

Case study highlighting 3 priorities that can assist the field of wildlife management in achieving the changes necessary to bridge worldviews.

Within governance agencies, academia, and communities alike, there are increasing calls to recognize the value and importance of culture within social-ecological systems and to better implement Indigenous sciences in research, policy, and management. Efforts thus far have raised questions about the best ethical practices to do so. Engaging with plural worldviews and perspectives on their own terms reflects driving shifts in 3 fundamental areas of natural resource management: conceptualizations of natural resources and ecosystems, processes of public participation and governance, and relationships with Indigenous Peoples and communities with differing worldviews. 

We broadly describe evolution toward these paradigm shifts in fish and wildlife management. We then use 3 case studies to illustrate the ongoing cultural evolution of relationships between wildlife management and Indigenous practices within specific historical and social-ecological contexts and reflect on common barriers to appropriately engaging with Indigenous paradigms and lifeways. 

Fisk JJ, Leong KM, Berl REW, Long JW, Landon AC, Adams MM, Hankins DL, Williams CK, Lake FK, Salerno J 2024. Evolving wildlife management cultures of governance through Indigenous Knowledges and perspectives Journal of Wildlife Management e22584.. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22584

Last updated by Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center on 04/17/2024

Asian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Research

ISSN: 2582-3760

Asian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Research (ISSN: 2582-3760) aims to publish high quality papers ( Click here for Types of paper ) on all areas of aquatic research. By not excluding papers based on novelty, this journal facilitates the research and wishes to publish papers as long as they are technically correct and scientifically motivated. The journal also encourages the submission of useful reports of negative results. This is a quality controlled, OPEN peer-reviewed, open-access INTERNATIONAL journal.

Current Issue

2024 - Volume 26 [Issue 4]

Original Research Article

Correlation of water quality parameters on growth performance of seaweed (kappaphycus alvarezii doty, 1986) cultivated with diagonal method.

Dewi Anita, Wayan Kantun, Imran Lapong

Dietary Supplementation of Chromium Picolinate does not affect Growth Performance and Feed Conversion Ratio of Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

Ishori Singh Mahato , Krishna Paudel

Evaluation of the Impact of Feed Types on Reproductive Performance and Growth of Clarias gariepinus under different Culture Systems

Ekanem I. E., Nlewadim A. A, Uka A.

Studies on Seasonal Variation of Zooplankton Population in Elanthakulam, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District, India

Ananth Kumar , Manikandaraja

Comparative Study on Current Fishing Status of Paalameenmadu and Kallar Barmouths in Batticaloa District, Sri Lanka

K. Aruniya, I. U. Wickramaratne, E.P.D.N. Thilakarathne

Effects of Tiny Moss Bryum capillare Meal on Growth Parameter, Haematology, Histology and Carcass Quality of Clarias gariepinus (Burchell) Juveniles

Amadi-Ibiam Christina Onyemachi, Ayotunde, Ezekiel Olatunji, Nwabunike, Maureen Obioma, Ibiam Francis Amadi

Phytoremediation Potential of Selected Plants & Growth of Oreochromis niloticus (Linnaeus, 1758) in Aquaponic Systems

Zipporah Gichana

© Copyright 2010-Till Date, Asian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Research. All rights reserved.

• Leadership Report

The Big Climate Costs That Lie Just Below the Surface

I t's no longer breaking news that the costs of climate change will add up quickly as extreme weather linked to global warming leads to one costly disaster after another. But, nonetheless, on occasion it makes sense to pause and take stock, and this week offered two research items that remind me of how those will stack up.

The first is an April 15 report from the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that warns that coral reefs are undergoing a fourth “global bleaching event.” Bleaching—when corals lose their color—is a sign that corals are unhealthy and can result from a range of strains, including polluted water. But the primary driver these days is the warmer waters that have resulted from climate change. While bleached corals are still alive, they are much more vulnerable to disease and much more likely to die. Right now, reefs in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans are all experiencing bleaching; many reefs face a truly existential threat.

The state of reefs is a great example of the surprising economic ripple effects of climate change—and those effects are bound to hit a wide range of firms. Most obviously, reefs drive some $36 billion in tourism across the globe, according to data from the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network. But that’s just the start. Reefs can reduce wave energy, protecting coastal cities from the high cost of flooding. They support marine fisheries that in turn support food production. And researchers see marine ecosystems as a potential source of new medical treatments, including for cancer.

Add this all up and there’s a lot of economic value at stake—trillions annually, according to some measures . If you run a hotel near the Great Barrier Reef, the threat is obvious. But big firms in everything from pharmaceuticals to consumer goods may be wise to look at the unexpected ways their value chains may be wrapped up in reefs.

As significant as it is, the economic damage caused by the destruction of coral reefs is just one small piece of a much bigger picture of how climate will shape the economy. Another study published Wednesday in the journal Nature brings this idea home. The world has already baked in climate-related losses of $38 trillion per year by the middle of the century, according to the study. That means that average income per capita across the globe will be 19% lower than in a world without climate impacts. And while the poorest regions are hit the hardest, the impacts occur across the globe.

Getting to such numbers requires a range of assumptions, and the authors don’t pretend that theirs are perfect. But anyone who would like to see the global economy continue to grow should take note of how the economic costs of climate change are stacking up. Moreover, as those costs continue to rise, companies will increasingly need to adjust their strategies for a much different economic landscape. The mid-century impacts, forecast in so much climate research now, aren’t that far away.

More Must-Reads From TIME

• The 100 Most Influential People of 2024
• The Revolution of Yulia Navalnaya
• 6 Compliments That Land Every Time
• What's the Deal With the Bitcoin Halving?
• If You're Dating Right Now , You're Brave: Column
• The AI That Could Heal a Divided Internet
• Fallout Is a Brilliant Model for the Future of Video Game Adaptations
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Write to Justin Worland at [email protected]

Surf clams off the coast of Virginia reappear -- and rebound

Rutgers scientists point to improved environmental conditions as possible reason.

The Atlantic surfclam, an economically valuable species that is the main ingredient in clam chowder and fried clam strips, has returned to Virginia waters in a big way, reversing a die-off that started more than two decades ago.

In a comprehensive study of surfclams collected from an area about 45 miles due east from the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, Rutgers scientists found the population to be thriving and growing. A likely reason could be that environmental conditions improved, and another possibility is that the clams adapted, the scientists said. The report, published in the science journal Estuaries and Coasts , details the characteristics of a population of healthy-size surfclams of different ages living just under the surface of the sandy ocean bottom.

And it's all a bit of a surprise.

"It's unexpected and it's good news," said Daphne Munroe, an associate professor in the Department of Marine and Coastal Sciences in the Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, and an author of the study. "They disappeared some time ago -- we thought they were gone. But we found there were more clams there than we thought we were going to see. And they are flourishing."

Surfclams started disappearing from waters off the coast of Virginia in the late 1990s, affected by warming water, Munroe said. By the turn of the 21st century, there were too few present to justify fishing in those waters.

One day in 2021, Munroe received a phone call from one of her fishing partners with whom she often collaborates.

"He said, 'Daphne, do you know I've got five boats working out of Cape Charles [off Virginia's Eastern Shore] right now? They're catching surfclams and we're putting them on trucks,'" Munroe said.

She added, "And I said, 'What is that? What are they doing? How is that possible?'"

The refrigerated trucks carting seafood were headed to Port Norris, N.J., she was told, the location of one of the main surfclam processing plants on the East Coast. Munroe works out of the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station's Haskin Shellfish Research Laboratory in Port Norris, just around the corner from the processor.

"I told him: 'I have to see those clams. That's crazy.'"

Munroe, an expert in the dynamics of coastal and marine ecosystems, examined the surfclams and a new research study was born. She secured funding from the National Science Foundation-funded Science Center for Marine Fisheries that enabled Munroe to hire a Michigan State undergraduate, Brynne Wisner, as an intern. Wisner, who would lead the collection, preparation and measurement of the clams, became first author on the study.

The Atlantic surfclam -- its shell well-known to beachcombers in the northeastern U.S. -- is one of the most common species of bivalves in the western Atlantic Ocean. Surfclams can live 40 years and grow their shells up to 8 or 9 inches long.

While its habitat ranges from the Gulf of St. Lawrence in Canada to Cape Hatteras in North Carolina, the surfclam's primary population lives off the coast of New Jersey. There, the relatively shallow Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf provides an ideal, vast breeding habitat, extending for about 100 miles before a falloff to the canyons of the deep ocean. The animals also thrive in the Cold Pool, a band of cold near-bottom water that streams through the lower regions of this section of the New York-New Jersey Bight.

The researchers used the New Jersey surfclam population, perfectly located in the middle of the species range, as a standard of comparison in the study. From the samples collected from Virginia waters, scientists recorded the ages of each surfclam shell (as with trees, the successive rings on the shells equate to years lived), its size, rate of growth and whether the surfclam contained a generous portion of meat. They also collected tissue samples for genetic analysis.

"The clams in the southern range are in good shape," Munroe said. "They are still young, and growing as we would expect."

The study found multiple generations of surfclams in the animals collected, a sign of a healthy, expanding population.

"The finding suggests that environmental conditions may have improved for surfclams in the south, or that this population has acclimated to altered conditions," Munroe said.

Understanding the population of surfclams at the southern edge of their range can help researchers better understand shifts in the ranges of species and possible adaptation and recovery, Munroe said.

The genetic analysis indicated that, among the population of the surfclam species, Spisula solidissima solidissima , a smaller subspecies better known for favoring warmer climates, Spisula solidissima similis, was also found living there.

Further research, Munroe said, will investigate the possibility of mating between these species. This phenomenon, known as subspecies hybridization, can be an important path for species to adapt to a changing environment.

In addition to Munroe and Wisner, other Rutgers scientists on the study included Ximing Guo, a distinguished professor in the Department of Marine and Coastal Sciences; Zhenwei Wang, a doctoral student; and Ailey Sheehan, a lab technician, all with the Haskin Shellfish Research Laboratory.

• Marine Biology
• New Species
• Environmental Awareness
• Oceanography
• Exotic Species
• Shiitake mushroom
• Hayward Fault Zone
• Atlantic salmon
• Hurricane Katrina
• Gulf Stream

Story Source:

Materials provided by Rutgers University . Original written by Kitta MacPherson. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Brynne Wisner, Zhenwei Wang, Ailey Sheehan, Ximing Guo, Daphne Munroe. Genetics, Age Demographics, and Shell Size of Atlantic Surfclams from the Southern Edge of Their Range . Estuaries and Coasts , 2023; 47 (2): 485 DOI: 10.1007/s12237-023-01281-z

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• Two Species Interbreeding Created New Butterfly
• Warming Antarctic Deep-Sea and Sea Level Rise
• Octopus Inspires New Suction Mechanism for ...
• Cities Sinking: Urban Populations at Risk
• Puzzle Solved About Ancient Galaxy
• How 3D Printers Can Give Robots a Soft Touch
• Combo of Multiple Health Stressors Harming Bees
• Methane Emission On a Cold Brown Dwarf
• Remarkable Memories of Mountain Chickadees
• Predicting Future Marine Extinctions

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.