Nets Drive Evolution of Small Fish

In a test lake stocked with two types of trout, fishing with nets mostly caught larger, faster-growing fish, leaving smaller, slower growers to survive and pass on those traits. Karen Hopkin reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Being a big fish in a small pond is more likely to get you noticed. That’s good news if you’re, say, the best pitcher in your little league division. But it’s not so good if you’re an actual fish. Because bigger fish are the ones that tend to get caught. Not only is that bad news for the fish, but it may be bad for the whole fish population. Or so say scientists from Australia and Canada in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. They find that fishing for the largest individuals targets the fastest growers, leaving behind their slower-growing counterparts. Which means that current fishing practices may favor the evolution of slower-growing fish.
 
The scientists stocked two small lakes in British Columbia with two strains of rainbow trout: one that grows quickly and is more aggressive in chasing down food and another that grows slowly and tends to be more cautious. They then used commercial gillnets to fish the lakes and found that they bagged the bolder fish three times faster than the shy ones, which were left behind to multiply. So we could inadvertently be breeding fearful small fry that are nearly impossible to catch. Which would make them…hard-to-see food.

—Karen Hopkin

60-Second Science is a daily podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe