Long-term changes and effects of significant fishery closures on marine survival and biological characteristics of wild and hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon Salmo salar.

Long-term data, over four decades, were analysed to examine temporal trends in survival indices and phenotypic characteristics of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar returning to the Burrishoole national salmonid monitored river in Ireland. Before 2007, the marine drift net fishery was the major capture method for salmon in Irish home waters, accounting for over 70% of the commercial catch and targeting mixed stocks from multiple rivers. The authors examined size differences in fish captured in marine and freshwater environments and the impact of closure of this fishery on long-term survival indices and fish size. Return rates to Irish home waters for wild one sea-winter (1SW) and a ranching strain of hatchery-reared 1SW Atlantic salmon stocks showed a declining trend up to the time of closure of the fishery (1985-2006). In contrast, closure of the drift net fishery resulted in the anticipated increase in return rate to fresh water in the short term. Nonetheless, the short-term upward trend was not sustained in the following years: the trend for return rate to fresh water (1985-2017) was found to be neither increasing nor decreasing. Mean return rates to fresh water 10 years pre- and post-closure of the drift net fishery increased from 7.4% to 8.5% for wild 1SW and significantly from 2.4% to 3.7% for ranched 1SW suggesting some benefit had accrued as a consequence of drift net closure. For ranched 1SW salmon, entry into fresh water was found to be occurring earlier, which is likely a phenotypical response to changing climatic conditions. A declining trend in fish length was found in the pre-closure period, followed by a more stable trend post-closure. Similar patterns were observed for fish condition and weight parameters. Significantly, a step change in fish size occurred just before the closure of the Irish drift net fishery in both marine and freshwater habitats, when the average length decreased by 3.8 and 4.6 cm, respectively, between 2005 and 2006. This suggests an environmental effect on the population, rather than a fishery closure effect. Similar trends in fish length were observed in wild 1SW salmon kelts and ranched 2SW salmon in fresh water. The stable but not increasing trends post-closure suggest that conditions at sea may not be improving. These findings show that a clear decline occurred in wild and ranched salmon populations' return rates and lengths, while the drift net fishery was still active. Closure of the fishery did not result in a rebound to pre-exploitation levels of these indicators. Nonetheless, the trends went from declining to stable, suggesting the closure helped mitigate the impact of unfavourable environmental and rearing habitat conditions. These findings, based on four decades of data, highlight the urgency of strengthening monitoring of fisheries populations in face of climate change, so as to guide precautionary management measures that, as this study suggests, may be able to mitigate its impacts.

Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability.

Peer review is a gatekeeper, the final arbiter of what is valued in academia, but it has been criticized in relation to traditional psychological research criteria of reliability, validity, generalizability, and potential biases. Despite a considerable literature, there is surprisingly little sound peer-review research examining these criteria or strategies for improving the process. This article summarizes the authors' research program with the Australian Research Council, which receives thousands of grant proposals from the social science, humanities, and science disciplines and reviews by assessors from all over the world. Using multilevel cross-classified models, the authors critically evaluated peer reviews of grant applications and potential biases associated with applicants, assessors, and their interaction (e.g., age, gender, university, academic rank, research team composition, nationality, experience). Peer reviews lacked reliability, but the only major systematic bias found involved the inflated, unreliable, and invalid ratings of assessors nominated by the applicants themselves. The authors propose a new approach, the reader system, which they evaluated with psychology and education grant proposals and found to be substantially more reliable and strategically advantageous than traditional peer reviews of grant applications.