Dataset Information

How fast is fisheries-induced evolution? Quantitative analysis of modelling and empirical studies.

ABSTRACT: A number of theoretical models, experimental studies and time-series studies of wild fish have explored the presence and magnitude of fisheries-induced evolution (FIE). While most studies agree that FIE is likely to be happening in many fished stocks, there are disagreements about its rates and implications for stock viability. To address these disagreements in a quantitative manner, we conducted a meta-analysis of FIE rates reported in theoretical and empirical studies. We discovered that rates of phenotypic change observed in wild fish are about four times higher than the evolutionary rates reported in modelling studies, but correlation between the rate of change and instantaneous fishing mortality (F) was very similar in the two types of studies. Mixed-model analyses showed that in the modelling studies traits associated with reproductive investment and growth evolved slower than rates related to maturation. In empirical observations age-at-maturation was changing faster than other life-history traits. We also found that, despite different assumption and modelling approaches, rates of evolution for a given F value reported in 10 of 13 modelling studies were not significantly different.

SUBMITTER: Audzijonyte A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3684740 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How fast is fisheries-induced evolution? Quantitative analysis of modelling and empirical studies.

Audzijonyte Asta A Kuparinen Anna A Fulton Elizabeth A EA

Evolutionary applications 20130124 4

A number of theoretical models, experimental studies and time-series studies of wild fish have explored the presence and magnitude of fisheries-induced evolution (FIE). While most studies agree that FIE is likely to be happening in many fished stocks, there are disagreements about its rates and implications for stock viability. To address these disagreements in a quantitative manner, we conducted a meta-analysis of FIE rates reported in theoretical and empirical studies. We discovered that rates ...[more]

PMID: 23789026

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Standard random-effects meta-analysis methods perform poorly when applied to few studies only. Such settings however are commonly encountered in practice. It is unclear, whether or to what extent small-sample-size behaviour can be improved by more sophisticated modeling. METHODS:We consider likelihood-based methods, the DerSimonian-Laird approach, Empirical Bayes, several adjustment methods and a fully Bayesian approach. Confidence intervals are based on a normal approximation, or on adjustments based on the Student-t-distribution. In addition, a linear mixed model and two generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) assuming binomial or Poisson distributed numbers of events per study arm are considered for pairwise binary meta-analyses. We extract an empirical data set of 40 meta-analyses from recent reviews published by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). Methods are then compared empirically as well as in a simulation study, based on few studies, imbalanced study sizes, and considering odds-ratio (OR) and risk ratio (RR) effect sizes. Coverage probabilities and interval widths for the combined effect estimate are evaluated to compare the different approaches. RESULTS:Empirically, a majority of the identified meta-analyses include only 2 studies. Variation of methods or effect measures affects the estimation results. In the simulation study, coverage probability is, in the presence of heterogeneity and few studies, mostly below the nominal level for all frequentist methods based on normal approximation, in particular when sizes in meta-analyses are not balanced, but improve when confidence intervals are adjusted. Bayesian methods result in better coverage than the frequentist methods with normal approximation in all scenarios, except for some cases of very large heterogeneity where the coverage is slightly lower. Credible intervals are empirically and in the simulation study wider than unadjusted confidence intervals, but considerably narrower than adjusted ones, with some exceptions when considering RRs and small numbers of patients per trial-arm. Confidence intervals based on the GLMMs are, in general, slightly narrower than those from other frequentist methods. Some methods turned out impractical due to frequent numerical problems. CONCLUSIONS:In the presence of between-study heterogeneity, especially with unbalanced study sizes, caution is needed in applying meta-analytical methods to few studies, as either coverage probabilities might be compromised, or intervals are inconclusively wide. Bayesian estimation with a sensibly chosen prior for between-trial heterogeneity may offer a promising compromise.

Dataset Information

How fast is fisheries-induced evolution? Quantitative analysis of modelling and empirical studies.

Publications

How fast is fisheries-induced evolution? Quantitative analysis of modelling and empirical studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets